The story of the coin in the mouth of the fish appears in the Christian NT in Matt.17:24-27. It is clear the author of the story does not intend to relate a miracle of Jesus, simply put, the presentation of a mere coin in the mouth of a fish would be considered a trivial exercise of the Lord's divine power. To buttress the point, the fulfillment was never documented.

In any event,the question," Doth not your master pay the shekel-tax? " has always been understood as an indication that doubts existed in the earliest church, as to whether this tribute was to be paid by the followers of Christ, and that the subsequent answer of Jesus to Peter is intended as a guiding decision on the matter.

Therefore, if we accept the story as an allegory,(which it is) we can see that it presupposes the rather harsh rule of Matt.10:10, where the messengers of Jesus are expressly forbidden to possess and accept any money. Unlike the greedy “annointing” mongers of today, whose behaviors brings shame to their religion the original apostles were not allowed to accept anything beyond food and shelter from their brethren, either for the glad tidings of salvation or for the healing of the sick,the cleansing of the lepers, the raising of the dead, or for the expulsion of demons through their prayers.

Even if the problem had not been foreseen by Jesus, the issue would have immediately arisen, how were his messengers supposed to meet daily exigencies including the somewhat heavy money-tax for the Jewish sanctuary without infringing this inflexible rule. The symbolic solution of this dilemma in the alleged words of Matthew has sometimes been explained as referring to the former professional work of the apostle, to which he is advised to return in the case of emergency.

But we know most of the followers of Jesus had given up their livelihood to follow their Master. Therefore we have to accept the simple and convincing explanation of the likes of Origen, who see in this passage an allusion to the symbolic fishing of men.

It therefore becomes quite obvious that the “first fish” referred to in the story is the next convert whom Peter is to win for the community of Christ, from him the apostle is granted in spite of the previous command to give freely what had been received freely and to accept a moderate voluntary gift, just enough to pay the tax for himself and for Jesus.

One sentence, however stands this entire story on its head Matt 17:25 ("What thinkest thou Simon ? of whom do the kings of the earth take tax or tribute ? of their own children or of strangers ? Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free)

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever if applied to the old temple-duty the tax would have been applied to during the lifetime of Jesus.

Why? Because no contemporary of Jesus could say that the half-shekel for the Lord’s house was taken by the rulers of the earth nor could any Jew, who had the slightest knowledge, not even of the written law,but even just a passing notion the most ordinary occurrences in his own country, believe for one moment that this tribute was due from strangers only and not from the “children” of Israel.

The verse makes sense only if the saying is applied to a later period as will be shown.

After the destruction of the temple the Romans continued to levy the old Jewish tribute for Yahweh as a state-tax from every grown-up Jew for the benefit of the Capitoline Jupiter's treasury. Under Roman Emperor Domitian this was exacted with increased severity not only from
all persons who openly professed the Jewish religion, but also from all kinds of people whom the authorities chose to consider as Pseudo-Jews, as well " from those who observed a Jewish mode of life, without admitting they were Jews, as from those who concealed their Jewish descent in order to avoid the tribute imposed on their nation.

We are told that for those religiously indifferent Jews who neglected the sabbath and the fasts,Roman officers satisfied themselves as to the fact of circumcision by inspection.(according to Suetonius, the imperial recorder, who seems to have copied the above legal definitions from the very text of the Imperial decree)

It was a serious matter, first, for the numerous paupers in the early Church, who could not pay such a comparatively heavy tax, and
would be reduced to apostasy by the new policy of the Roman emperors, which surely was intended to prevent the further progress of Christianity among the poorer classes at least, and, secondly, for the “apostles” ,“prophets”,”teachers””shepherds” or whatever they were called whom based on Matt.10:10 were already avowed to absolute poverty and above all, for those Christian converts who had previously enjoyed freedom from all taxation, either as citizens of Rome or as inhabitants of certain privileged towns in the provinces.

Therefore Jesus’ alleged "kings of the earth " saying is a very appropriate description of the Roman Caesars, they alone can be said to take tax and tribute not from " their children," the legally immune Roman citizens, but from the conquered or allied provincials, the "strangers"
of the gospel-text.

It is therefore apparent that he who wrote the story wanted to dissuade his flock from provoking the Pagan government by refusing the tax. The solution of the controversy which he proposes in order to avoid the imminent problems was to apply the Pauline principle (Rom. 16:27) " If the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things".

Therefore, the new Christian converts, the “fish” caught by the hook of St. Peter,would henceforth have to present to the “fisher” or
apostle, who initiates them into spiritual communion with Christ, the modest offering of one stater,that is the double amount of the tax.

From the fund collected in this way one half is the “pence of Christ,” from which the tax will be paid for the poor who cannot find the tax themselves, the other half is the “pence of Peter,” from which the unpaid clergy will pay their tribute.

It is well known that up until the end of the third century CE newly converted Christians were usually expected to throw coins into the baptismal fountain during immersion. By fishing this money out of the water, the clergy obtained in a manner the necessary monies, without directly infringing the command to "give freely what they had received freely."

The practice of Priests delving into the baptismal fountains to retrieve coins was abolished in the Council of Elvira as the church considered the spectacle of priests scrambling around picking up coins in fountains; unseemly.

In the final analysis, We now know that the story in the Book Matthew refers to the conversion of the Gentiles, we also know that the story of the coin in the mouth of the fish is an allegory, finally we also know the story was written under the reign of Emperor Domitian the last of the Flavian rulers who ruled Rome from 81CE to 96CE, his reign began fully 50 years after the passing of Jesus and therefore cannot be fully attributable as an authentic saying of Jesus.

Everything for bible that can not be proved scientifically has become ALLEGORY.

People

jdilight:
Everything for bible that can not be proved scientifically has become ALLEGORY.

People

One would think in this case, it is quite obvious, no?

Sarassin:


One would think in this case, it is quite obvious, no?

What makes it an obvious allegory?

jdilight:


What makes it an obvious allegory?

For all the reasons I have previously stated above. But even simpler, I presume you are familiar with the Christian term "fishers of men", it is a metaphorical connotation of the act of converting unbelievers to the message of Jesus. The same applies, Cephas does not come back and say, "my Lord, I cast my net and caught a large fish and retrieved a silver coin from its mouth", he would have looked a prize fool, rather, he went out and converted a few Gentiles one coin at a time.

Sarassin:
The story of the coin in the mouth of the fish appears in the Christian NT in Matt.17:24-27. It is clear the author of the story does not intend to relate a miracle of Jesus, simply put, the presentation of a mere coin in the mouth of a fish would be considered a trivial exercise of the Lord's divine power. To buttress the point, the fulfillment was never documented.

In any event,the question," Doth not your master pay the shekel-tax? " has always been understood as an indication that doubts existed in the earliest church, as to whether this tribute was to be paid by the followers of Christ, and that the subsequent answer of Jesus to Peter is intended as a guiding decision on the matter.

Therefore, if we accept the story as an allegory, (which it is) we can see that it presupposes the rather harsh rule of Matt.10:10, where the messengers of Jesus are expressly forbidden to possess and accept any money. Unlike the greedy “annointing” mongers of today, whose behaviors brings shame to their religion the original apostles were not allowed to accept anything beyond food and shelter from their brethren, either for the glad tidings of salvation or for the healing of the sick,the cleansing of the lepers, the raising of the dead, or for the expulsion of demons through their prayers.

Even if the problem had not been foreseen by Jesus, the issue would have immediately arisen, how were his messengers supposed to meet daily exigencies including the somewhat heavy money-tax for the Jewish sanctuary without infringing this inflexible rule. The symbolic solution of this dilemma in the alleged words of Matthew has sometimes been explained as referring to the former professional work of the apostle, to which he is advised to return in the case of emergency.

But we know most of the followers of Jesus had given up their livelihood to follow their Master. Therefore we have to accept the simple and convincing explanation of the likes of Origen, who see in this passage an allusion to the symbolic fishing of men.

jdilight:
Everything for bible that can not be proved scientifically has become ALLEGORY.

People

Sarassin:
One would think in this case, it is quite obvious, no?

jdilight:
What makes it an obvious allegory?

Sarassin:
For all the reasons I have previously stated above. But even simpler, I presume you are familiar with the Christian term "fishers of men", it is a metaphorical connotation of the act of converting unbelievers to the message of Jesus. The same applies, Cephas does not come back and say, "my Lord, I cast my net and caught a large fish and retrieved a silver coin from its mouth", he would have looked a prize fool, rather, he went out and converted a few Gentiles one coin at a time.

The ALLEGORY, the "hidden message" leaps out at readers with gnawing teeth

Very good, interesting and on point thread

Mark was written first and Matthew later
Matthew goofs a bit in his re-writes anyway
Matthew rehashed from Mark but doesnt at times, fully understands, follow or get Mark, when using his materials

Peter was asked to use a hook to catch a fish,
sticking with the "fish" theme or paraphernalia
but Matthew's fishing net, out of ignorance or ineptitude ends up at times mangling fish
An example is, Matthew incorrectly rehashing Zechariah 9:9 into Jesus riding two donkeys as opposed to one

MuttleyLaff:


The ALLEGORY, the "hidden message" leaps out at readers with gnawing teeth

Very good, interesting and on point thread

Mark was written first and Matthew later
Matthew goofs a bit in his re-writes anyway
Matthew rehashed from Mark but doesnt at times, fully understands, follow or get Mark, when using his materials

Peter was asked to use a hook to catch a fish,
sticking with the "fish" theme or paraphernalia
but Matthew's fishing net, out of ignorance or ineptitude ends up at times mangling fish
An example is, Matthew incorrectly rehashing Zechariah 9:9 into Jesus riding two donkeys as opposed to one

Thank you, the Allegory is glaring, incidentally I do agree with you that the author of Matthew makes a significant hash of matters, and quite frankly, so do the others, the author of Luke is particularly negligent in my view.

Sarassin:


For all the reasons I have previously stated above. But even simpler, I presume you are familiar with the Christian term "fishers of men", it is a metaphorical connotation of the act of converting unbelievers to the message of Jesus. The same applies, Cephas does not come back and say, "my Lord, I cast my net and caught a large fish and retrieved a silver coin from its mouth", he would have looked a prize fool, rather, he went out and converted a few Gentiles one coin at a time.

So to catch a fish with a coin, you need a net? Or are you saying he should have gone with a net, catch a lot of fishes and start opening their mouth to check the one with a coin assuming the story was really and not allegory as alleged by you?

jdilight:


So to catch a fish with a coin, you need a net? Or are you saying he should have gone with a net, catch a lot of fishes and start opening their mouth to check the one with a coin assuming the story was really and not allegory as alleged by you?

I think you miss my point. If we assume the story was factual (which it isn’t) then Peter was commanded to “take the first fish he caught...” and retrieve a coin, this he could have accomplished by angling with a line and hook or a net, the method of catching the fish is largely irrelevant.

When Jesus allegedly tells Peter and Andrew he will make them Fishers of men, do you assume they then went off and literally started dragging people out of the sea of Galillee ? Of course not It is of course a “figurative” fishing, the same applies in the story of the coin in the mouth of the fish.

Sarassin:


I think you miss my point. If we assume the story was factual (which it isn’t) then Peter was commanded to “take the first fish he caught...” and retrieve a coin, this he could have accomplished by angling with a line and hook or a net, the method of catching the fish is largely irrelevant.

When Jesus allegedly tells Peter and Andrew he will make them Fishers of men, do you assume they then went off and literally started dragging people out of the sea of Galillee ? Of course not It is of course a “figurative” fishing, the same applies in the story of the coin in the mouth of the fish.

What gave you the impression if Jesus tell you to go get a coin from a fish that you will have to catch two fishes to get the coin?

jdilight:


What gave you the impression if Jesus tell you to go get a coin from a fish that you will have to catch two fishes to get the coin?

Your question is basically a "red herring", the premise of my posts is that the story is in itself allegorical. Whether you would have to catch One fish or Two to obtain the coin is irrelevant, don't you think ?

Sarassin:


Your question is basically a "red herring", the premise of my posts is that the story is in itself allegorical. Whether you would have to catch One fish or Two to obtain the coin is irrelevant, don't you think ?

I maintain is real story. When you talk about allegory, everything in the story represent something. But in your explanation, many players in the story were missing.

jdilight:


I maintain is real story. When you talk about allegory, everything in the story represent something. But in your explanation, many players in the story were missing.

Actually it is a straight-forward allegorical story attributed posthumously to Jesus. I have shown that historically, the setting for the story is placed at least 50 years after his passing. I am not sure what you mean when you say “many players are missing”

Sarassin:


Actually it is a straight-forward allegorical story attributed posthumously to Jesus. I have shown that historically, the setting for the story is placed at least 50 years after his passing. I am not sure what you mean when you say “many players are missing”

In allegory the hook, fish, sea, coin, the tribute collector will represent something. But in your explanation most represented nothing.

Jesus asked peter to go with a hook and collect the coin in question from the first fish that the hook catch.

This was a divine direction like the one he told them to cast their net on the right side to catch a draught.

Your facts are drawn from the fact that the coin in the mouth of the fish story appear only in one epistle. How many epistle did the story of catching a draught appear in or was that also an allegory?

jdilight:


In allegory the hook, fish, sea, coin, the tribute collector will represent something. But in your explanation most represented nothing.

Jesus asked peter to go with a hook and collect the coin in question from the first fish that the hook catch.

This was a divine direction like the one he told them to cast their net on the right side to catch a draught.

Your facts are drawn from the fact that the coin in the mouth of the fish story appear only in one epistle. How many epistle did the story of catching a draught appear in or was that also an allegory?

An allegory can come in different forms, the allegory here is in the conversion of unbelievers to Christianity and levying them. The first "fish" to be hooked is tthe first convert. This is very clear a also my facts are drawn in the sure knowledge that for historical reasons the story could not have been written during the lifetime of Jesus.

Sarassin:


An allegory can come in different forms, the allegory here is in the conversion of unbelievers to Christianity and levying them. The first "fish" to be hooked is tthe first convert. This is very clear a also my facts are drawn in the sure knowledge that for historical reasons the story could not have been written during the lifetime of Jesus.

What does the hook, the tax collectors, the coin etc represent?

Of history, are you saying taxes were not paid in Jesus time?

jdilight:


What does the hook, the tax collectors, the coin etc represent?

Of history, are you saying taxes were not paid in Jesus time?

The hook of course represents the message of Jesus, the "fish" is self-evident. Those are the main allegorical allusions.
Taxes were paid during the lifetime of Jesus, if you read the OP clearly you will realize that the taxes the writer of the gospel of Matthew alludes to in that story were not levied untill at at least half a century after the death of Jesus.

Sarassin:


The hook of course represents the message of Jesus, the "fish" is self-evident. Those are the main allegorical allusions.
Taxes were paid during the lifetime of Jesus, if you read the OP clearly you will realize that the taxes the writer of the gospel of Matthew alludes to in that story were not levied untill at at least half a century after the death of Jesus.

The coin and others were not explained. I won't you to study that place without the allegorical mind you have been sold. And watch the chronicle steps peter was to take and the reasons he was to do that and after ask. Could Jesus really do that in real life?

brother, everything you ascribed to that verse had nothing to with it. first off let me tell you that the bible was put together by master masons. ascended masters and it is a coded work of numerology, etymology and astrology. The bible is also a hidden astrology text and astrology is the highest form of divination. that particular verse with the hook in the mouth of the fish is referring to the leo constellation. They are entering into the age of leo. here is the leo symbol. a hook in a mouth



its like this other verse referring to the entering the age of the water bearer which is the aquarius constellation

luke 22 vs 10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.