Early Christians and Money

[Setzer]

As far as I know, early Christians had no problem using coins bearing the image of a deified Roman Emperor. Even though this means they were in possession of idols, they still used Roman currency. One could mention they never technically worshipped them, but it's still kinda iffy if one is in the fundy mindset. Does anyone know the historical opinion of this?

[Broomstick]

I believe Jesus was asked something along those lines and responded with "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's", usually interpreted to mean it's OK to use money when you have to, and yes, you have to pay your taxes.

[Superman]

As far as I know, early Christians had no problem using coins bearing the image of a deified Roman Emperor. Even though this means they were in possession of idols, they still used Roman currency. One could mention they never technically worshipped them, but it's still kinda iffy if one is in the fundy mindset. Does anyone know the historical opinion of this?

As far as I know, an image, one which fell under more of role of a role of dulia (an image or figure not intended for worship reserved for the divine, eg kneeling to a king) wasn't a problem for the Jews.

The later Christians (16th century on) seemed to have a problem with this kind of thing.

[Darth Servo]

I'd say its a form of someone long after the fact trying to "get back to the roots" of things fueled by fanaticism rather than actual research. In the case of Idol worship, if one took the original commandment literally, no art would be allowed at all.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in th eearth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting th einiquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

A similar example would be with flags. The early Christians didn't have a problem with flags, neither does the modern nation of Israel yet the JWs see flags as a form of idol worship.[/quote]

[Magus]

One could mention they never technically worshipped them, but it's still kinda iffy if one is in the fundy mindset. Does anyone know the historical opinion of this?

The early Christians were all fundies?

[Dominus Atheos]

I'd say its a form of someone long after the fact trying to "get back to the roots" of things fueled by fanaticism rather than actual research. In the case of Idol worship, if one took the original commandment literally, no art would be allowed at all.

Actually, IIRC, the great number of paintings, statues, and idols was one of the big reasons for the Protastant split, for exactly the reason you mentioned.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Some of John's biblical writings (I could look up the exact passages if anyones interested) say that its okay to go ahead and do 'questionable' things like owning idols, eating meat consecrated/sacrificed to idols etc. as long as one realizes that the idol isn't real, has no power and as long as one is otherwise a good christian.

[Magus]

Some of John's biblical writings (I could look up the exact passages if anyones interested) say that its okay to go ahead and do 'questionable' things like owning idols, eating meat consecrated/sacrificed to idols etc. as long as one realizes that the idol isn't real, has no power and as long as one is otherwise a good christian.

That seems kind of strange...why would you sacrifice to an idol if you knew it had no power?

[Superman]

The funny thing is that, once again, the fundies miss the damn point. Religious iconography? Hell no! That's idolatry!

Let's not forget that these tards assign the uniquely godlike characteristic of infallibility and inerrancy to their holy book, so they too are practicing idolatry. Given the history of the religion, this easily qualifies as 'idolatry;' and much more so than bowing to statues, saints, and kings in a manner of respect theologically separated from reverence reserved for god.

[SirNitram]

One could mention they never technically worshipped them, but it's still kinda iffy if one is in the fundy mindset. Does anyone know the historical opinion of this?

The early Christians were all fundies?

The earliest Christians would be killed for their religion. It does not really take with most moderates.

That seems kind of strange...why would you sacrifice to an idol if you knew it had no power?

Do you read? It specifically says they must realize the idol doesn't have power, thus, if they're worshipping, they're not realizing it.

[Magus]

The earliest Christians would be killed for their religion. It does not really take with most moderates.

Well sure, the strength of their belief was fundamentalist, but that's not the same thing as holding fundamentalist beliefs.

Do you read? It specifically says they must realize the idol doesn't have power, thus, if they're worshipping, they're not realizing it.

My point is, how is it possible in the first place to sacrifice to an idol if you know the idol isn't real? The two ideas are diametrically opposed.

[Superman]

My point is, how is it possible in the first place to sacrifice to an idol if you know the idol isn't real? The two ideas are diametrically opposed.

You honestly think that everyone performing their asinine religious rituals did and do so out of genuine belief? Maybe most do, but lost of people do these motions to maintain the status quo.

[Magus]

You honestly think that everyone performing their asinine religious rituals did and do so out of genuine belief? Maybe most do, but lost of people do these motions to maintain the status quo.

Ah. Pretending to worship.

[Superman]

You said---> "why would you sacrifice to an idol if you knew it had no power?"

I told you why some might.

[Howedar]

The earliest Christians would be killed for their religion. It does not really take with most moderates.

Well sure, the strength of their belief was fundamentalist, but that's not the same thing as holding fundamentalist beliefs.

Do you even know what "fundamentalist" means?

A convenient definition terms it "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principle."

Early Christians were, by definition, fundamentalist, in the sense that fundamentalists want to return to how the early church was. Now modern fundamentalists aren't necessarily very good at achieving that (or realizing what it means, for that matter), but that's another discussion.

[Magus]

Early Christians were, by definition, fundamentalist, in the sense that fundamentalists want to return to how the early church was. Now modern fundamentalists aren't necessarily very good at achieving that (or realizing what it means, for that matter), but that's another discussion.

Right - the term as we use it today (and as it was used as I commented on it) is not the literal, dictionary definition. It's more often referring to the modern extremist viewpoint.

[Superman]

Wow, this goal-post-moving-circular-nonsense gets old. Fast.

[Broomstick]

That seems kind of strange...why would you sacrifice to an idol if you knew it had no power?

To save your life? To stay out of prison?

In some parts of the ancient pagan world failure to make proper sacrifices was a crime.

[Superman]

That seems kind of strange...why would you sacrifice to an idol if you knew it had no power?

To save your life? To stay out of prison?

In some parts of the ancient pagan world failure to make proper sacrifices was a crime.

Hell, in certain parts of Europe during the past 1000 years, the church would kill you for not participating.

[LadyTevar]

My point is, how is it possible in the first place to sacrifice to an idol if you know the idol isn't real? The two ideas are diametrically opposed.

You honestly think that everyone performing their asinine religious rituals did and do so out of genuine belief? Maybe most do, but lost of people do these motions to maintain the status quo.

Who said the Christians were worshipping the Idol? They were just eating the 'sacrifice' and sniggering at the idol-worshippers.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Let's not forget that these tards assign the uniquely godlike characteristic of infallibility and inerrancy to their holy book, so they too are practicing idolatry. Given the history of the religion, this easily qualifies as 'idolatry;' and much more so than bowing to statues, saints, and kings in a manner of respect theologically separated from reverence reserved for god.

Completely agree. IMO, the fundie assertion that their particular interpretation is the only valid one, combined with the lack of humility to even consider that they might be wrong, is the worst sort of idolatry imaginable. . .because they are essentially moulding God into what they want.

Some of John's biblical writings (I could look up the exact passages if anyones interested) say that its okay to go ahead and do 'questionable' things like owning idols, eating meat consecrated/sacrificed to idols etc. as long as one realizes that the idol isn't real, has no power and as long as one is otherwise a good christian.

That seems kind of strange...why would you sacrifice to an idol if you knew it had no power?

It didn't say it was OK to sacrifice to an idol. . .it said it was OK to eat food that was sacrificed to idols. There's a difference.

The biblical writing being referred to is likely 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 (attributed to Paul, not John), and the general gist is that it's not an issue unless the people think it is, in which case it is better to abstain.

Actually, IIRC, the great number of paintings, statues, and idols was one of the big reasons for the Protastant split, for exactly the reason you mentioned.

The selling of indulgences was THE big reason. But once the reformation was under way, it was carried to radical extremes (hence, part of it is called the Radical Reformation) in which such art WAS denounced on literalistic grounds. Unfortunately, those extremes still have influence today.

And eventually meandering back on topic. . .

As far as I know, an image, one which fell under more of role of a role of dulia (an image or figure not intended for worship reserved for the divine, eg kneeling to a king) wasn't a problem for the Jews.

I seem to recall the same. But during the Roman Empire, Caesar was considered divine, so how did this (i.e. coinds being minted with an image of a divine Caesar) affect the Jews and Christians of the time? I seem to recall that various Jewish sects avoided using Roman currency for this very reason, but I have no sources to confirm this. Anyone?

Early Christianity does seem to have been pragmatic on this though.

[LadyTevar]

Let's be blunt, folks. Today's version of Protestant Christianity is based on the idea that the Catholic Church of the time was corrupt and had 'fallen from God'. (There was corruption, greed, kickbacks, etc, so they were right there.)

However, the various Protestant groups that popped up all had different ideas of how to get 'back to God', many of them extreme (and most arriving later in The New World to set the religious tone in America). This extremist view lead to the Witch-hunts of the 1700s, as well as several wars.
At the end of the 1890s, there was a huge Revivial in America, to match the rise in Spiritualism in Europe. Unlike Europe, the Christian overtones of this Revival strengthened the ideal of the Bible as the One Truth

[Darth Servo]

I'd say its a form of someone long after the fact trying to "get back to the roots" of things fueled by fanaticism rather than actual research. In the case of Idol worship, if one took the original commandment literally, no art would be allowed at all.

Actually, IIRC, the great number of paintings, statues, and idols was one of the big reasons for the Protastant split, for exactly the reason you mentioned.

Yes, and the Reformatin was ~1500 years after the New Testament was written and who knows how long it had been since the 10 Commandments were put to papyrus. In other words, exactly the phenomena I had described.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Some of John's biblical writings (I could look up the exact passages if anyones interested) say that its okay to go ahead and do 'questionable' things like owning idols, eating meat consecrated/sacrificed to idols etc. as long as one realizes that the idol isn't real, has no power and as long as one is otherwise a good christian.

That seems kind of strange...why would you sacrifice to an idol if you knew it had no power?

In many towns/cities of the time it was in vogue for the dirty unwashed pagans to sacrifice meat to idols and then cook it and eat. In some places you literally couldn't buy meat that hadn't been sacrificed to some random statue. Paul (my bad on the John, my Bible fu is weak) was basically saying it was okay to eat meat in one of those towns because animals being sacrificed to an idol doesn't mean anything to the Christian God.