Thread: Would it have been that bad if early Christians worshipped the Roman Emperor? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026996
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
The thread about saying whatever you need, including denying Christianity, to get out of North Korean prison, has me thinking. Of course it is wrong to force anyone to worship or not worship anything, and choosing to die rather than do so is a very noble thing. But does paying lip service to an oppressive regime and going through the ritual motions they require really evil as long as you don't really believe what is contrary to your religion or do anything actually physically or emotionally harmful to yourself (like participate in human sacrifice)?
Imagine if early Christians had participated in the minimum of worship of the Emperor and eating food sacrificed to idols, etc., needed to show their loyalty to Rome and avoid execution. If they had maintained that doing so was wrong and try we're only doing so excuse they were being forced, would they have really been doing anything wrong? Is the only evil in doing so the potential that non-Christians might come to believe that Christianity is not really monotheistic (ie the potential that people will get the wrong idea about what the gospel means)? I think that maybe chia song martyrdom over making a token offering to a statue of the Emperor is less valuable for evangelism than showing to the world a life lived in service to God and one's neighbor. And maybe martyrdom for the sake of defending the poor and outcast (including non-Christians persecuted for their religion) might have been a better witness to the Gospel than dying over a violation of the first commandment of one's own religion that is all about ritual and symbolism.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't venerate or even emulate these kinds of martyrs. My question is more whether "giving in" at least superficially to the people with a knife to your neck is necessarily an evil thing in this case.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
If early Christians had worshipped the Roman emperor would they have gotten as famous? Martyrdom can be a great way to draw attention to one's cause.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The early Christians were very much either a part of, or at least twin sons of, the nascent Rabbinic (Synagogual, if you will) Judaism. The Jews of that day refused to burn incense to the emperor, and the Christians took their cue from them. It was in their spiritual blood that doing so would be betraying YHWH. Thinking they could do so and still remain faithful to God wasn't even mentally/spiritually a possibility for them.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Imagine if early Christians had participated in the minimum of worship of the Emperor and eating food sacrificed to idols, etc., needed to show their loyalty to Rome and avoid execution.
I think this is exactly what a lot of early Christians did, trying to keep their heads down and get on. Didn't help when people like Nero just wanted a scapegoat and it came down to: are you one of them or one of us?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think for some people it IS emotionally harmful to "just give in and say the words." I know it would destroy me (and I'm not claiming I'd be able to hold out, hope I'm never truly put to the test). I can't divorce myself from what I say. And the persecutors know that is true for a great many people, or they wouldn't waste their time trying to force the matter.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Thinking a bit more...
Now we've added deeds (burning incense, possibly bowing down) to words. Where exactly do we draw the line? We're getting into a general question of "what is okay to do when under duress, and what is not?" There has to be SOMETHING that is not okay to do under duress, and that is wrong even under duress, don't you think? It's not a case of "you have a gun to my head, so anything goes and I'm sin-free."
So how do you draw the line? Because where you draw it shows what you value most.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Imagine if early Christians had participated in the minimum of worship of the Emperor and eating food sacrificed to idols, etc., needed to show their loyalty to Rome and avoid execution.
I think this is exactly what a lot of early Christians did, trying to keep their heads down and get on.
Indeed. We don't have to imagine it because that's pretty much what happened. There was even a bit of controversy after Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire with hard-liners like Meletius and Arius arguing that those who had engaged in Imperial worship weren't really Christians and should be denied communion.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It was a key issue for Irenaeus in his pastoral struggles with Gnosticism, which led in due course to "Against Heresies". Some members of his congregation had been killed horribly for refusing to bend the knee, yet there were supporters of Valentinus who discounted the need for such demonstrations, on the basis of their 'superior understanding'.
"Against Heresies" was not some theoretical theological argument but in no small part was a heartfelt, often angry, response to what Irenaeus saw as an elitist dismissal of the simple faith of the martyrs.
"Against Heresies" is a very important stepping stone on the way towards the momentous decisions of the ecumenical councils, a couple of centuries later.
[ 05. March 2014, 19:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
If the early message had been that the worship of The One God was variable in intensity according to the pressure applied, then Christianity would have gently faded from view. The whole point was that the martyrs and their less-certain partners actually held out against the worst that the oppressors could do. Over something like 250 years, that shows a pretty good track record, one that was worth looking at.
Our problem at the moment is that we spend so much time and effort attacking each other that the "outsiders" can't see why it is worth bothering to be part of the group.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If the early message had been that the worship of The One God was variable in intensity according to the pressure applied, then Christianity would have gently faded from view.
If they'd all been utterly steadfast in their refusal to do what was asked of them by the authorities then they'd all have been killed, and the religion would have died out very quickly indeed. Is that better?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If the early message had been that the worship of The One God was variable in intensity according to the pressure applied, then Christianity would have gently faded from view. The whole point was that the martyrs and their less-certain partners actually held out against the worst that the oppressors could do. Over something like 250 years, that shows a pretty good track record, one that was worth looking at.
That is a significant exaggeration. A more accurate picture would be 250 years of low-level hostility (e.g. the Antonines & the first two Flavians) punctuated by occasional bouts of "the worst that the oppressors could do" (e.g. Nero, late-reign Domitian, Diocletian). For most of the period during which Christianity was illegal the Empire took a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' attitude towards the faith.
[ 05. March 2014, 20:07: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But their action was still counter-cultural
and you can be pretty sure that the neighbours probably weren't particularly supportive. Either the police might turn up or the evangelisation activity might annoy them.
Regardless of the detail, it was the long-lasting nature of their belief that got Constantine's attention.
Whether that was a Good Thing is still an open question.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
stonespring quote:
I think that maybe [choosing] martyrdom over making a token offering to a statue of the Emperor is less valuable for evangelism than showing to the world a life lived in service to God and one's neighbo[u]r
If you're showing to the world a life lived in service to God and one's neighbour, you won't live lies - that the extortionate murderous Emperor is God - and serving your neighbour will mark you out as a Christian, especially if they ask why you're being so kind, tolerant, gracious, generous, patient, diligent, honest, sober whilst at the same time being a pacifist and not selling out to the state.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If the early message had been that the worship of The One God was variable in intensity according to the pressure applied, then Christianity would have gently faded from view.
If they'd all been utterly steadfast in their refusal to do what was asked of them by the authorities then they'd all have been killed, and the religion would have died out very quickly indeed. Is that better?
"Is that better?" We could have ended up with something even worse?
I recently read that the early roman Christians were the first people identified as "atheists" - so-called because they refused to worship the emperor. Perhaps I'll just style myself freethinker and/or humanist in future!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I recently read that the early roman Christians were the first people identified as "atheists" - so-called because they refused to worship the emperor. Perhaps I'll just style myself freethinker and/or humanist in future!
Given that Socrates was rather famously executed on a charge of atheism (and, much less famously, Anaxagoras was exiled on the same charge), Christian claims to be first in this category seem spurious.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I recently read that the early roman Christians were the first people identified as "atheists" - so-called because they refused to worship the emperor. Perhaps I'll just style myself freethinker and/or humanist in future!
Given that Socrates was rather famously executed on a charge of atheism (and, much less famously, Anaxagoras was exiled on the same charge), Christian claims to be first in this category seem spurious.
Where did Christians claim to be atheists?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Or - if you mean they claimed to be the first to be addressed this way, where was that?
I thought it was a fairly common form of insult at the time.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I recently read that the early roman Christians were the first people identified as "atheists" - so-called because they refused to worship the emperor. Perhaps I'll just style myself freethinker and/or humanist in future!
Given that Socrates was rather famously executed on a charge of atheism (and, much less famously, Anaxagoras was exiled on the same charge), Christian claims to be first in this category seem spurious.
I was unclear - the suggestion was that the early roman Christians were called atheists by those who worshipped the emperor - not that they self-identified as such.
From what you say the suggestion is incorrect - but my warped sense of humour still causes the ends of my mouth to lift a little at the idea that Christians were reviled as atheists. They weren't of course - even though the miniscule, emerging, pre-Saul/Paul church appears to have regarded Jesus as less than a deity they still worshipped the Jewish god.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
HughWillRidMee wrote: quote:
...the miniscule, emerging, pre-Saul/Paul church appears to have regarded Jesus as less than a deity...
What do you mean by this though? Clearly they didn't think he was "a deity" in the sense of the Imperial cult. Is that it? Is "a deity" even a meaningful construct for what they thought?
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
Cyprian records his distress at large numbers in Carthage (around AD 250) who were quite happy to sacrifice:
quote:
...Many, however, were unsatisfied with doing destruction upon themselves; men were urged to their ruin by mutual encouragements, and the fateful cup of death was offered from mouth to mouth. Cyprian, De lapsis, 9
After the persecution, the churches had a big problem knowing what to do with those that had sacrificed (and what the authority was of those who had been imprisoned for refusing to sacrifice). In one case, a bishop led his entire congregation to sacrifice (Bishop Euctemon of Smyrna). The early Christian church had martyrs, but not every early Christian was a martyr.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Or - if you mean they claimed to be the first to be addressed this way, where was that?
I thought it was a fairly common form of insult at the time.
Until the 19th century, Teddy Roosevelt complains about Tom Paine being an atheist, it was an insult generally chucked around. There's no guarantee that the insultee was an atheist c.f. Early Christians, Hobbes, Paine etcetera, etcetera.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
HughWillRidMee wrote:
...the miniscule, emerging, pre-Saul/Paul church appears to have regarded Jesus as less than a deity...
How would you know? The pre-Paul church left no records.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
HughWillRidMee wrote:
...the miniscule, emerging, pre-Saul/Paul church appears to have regarded Jesus as less than a deity...
How would you know? The pre-Paul church left no records.
Does anyone know what, early on before the Roman state made a point of finding and persecuting Christians, Christians were asked to do that they would not which resulted in martyrdom? Was it offer incense to a statue of the Emperor? Was it eat food sacrificed to idols? I know in some cases it involved denying the divinity of Christ out loud, but that was usually after someone had complained about the Christians causing trouble. I am interested in whatever the "first confrontation" with the Roman imperial cult was over. I know that there were also confrontations with local Jewish communities, which Paul wrote about, but I am interested in the controversy about refusing to participate in the cult of the Emperor.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
This reminds me of something I was told, that some Jews were forced in the Middle Ages to recite Christian prayers. They would insert pauses in which, under their breath, they recited their own prayers. A relic of this today is that some historically-minded Jews will say prayers and insert pauses.
Were those Jews in the wrong? Should they have chosen martyrdom?
I think many people have at one time or another been forced to do things they didn't like.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I think it's problematic for Christians living in very comfortable conditions in the richest, freest countries in the world to pass judgement on Christians who lived long ago in much, much more horrific circumstances. We should be grateful that they can't come back from the dead to judge us - some of them might feel that considering the outcome across the centuries they'd wasted their lives in any case! (It'd make a good time-travel novel, though, wouldn't it?)
That's the passage of time for you; you can't see into the future, and you can't really live in the past. Perhaps all we can do in hindsight is try to figure out if people made their decisions in good faith or whether there were other issues at play. Establishing that is hard enough.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
HughWillRidMee wrote:
...the miniscule, emerging, pre-Saul/Paul church appears to have regarded Jesus as less than a deity...
How would you know? The pre-Paul church left no records.
I was thinking the same thing...
For those interested, the earliest claim that Christians are atheists I could find was in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (mid 2nd century):
quote:
But upon this the whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind displayed by the devout and godly race of Christians, cried out, “Away with the Atheists; let Polycarp be sought out!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yes, Polycarp was ordered to say "Away with the atheists," meaning Christians, but he pointed at the proconsul and the audience to his martyrdom and looked up to heaven, saying, "Away with the atheists."
He paid for that one.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
This reminds me of something I was told, that some Jews were forced in the Middle Ages to recite Christian prayers. They would insert pauses in which, under their breath, they recited their own prayers. A relic of this today is that some historically-minded Jews will say prayers and insert pauses.
Were those Jews in the wrong? Should they have chosen martyrdom?
The answer is exactly the same: it's not for me to say.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Exactly, mousethief. Persevering while keeping you head down may not be spectacular, but it may also require courage. Just a different kind of courage.
Finger pointing? Heck, anyone can do that. But it's normally bad for us. It can foster a kind of complacent self-righteousness.
(BTW, I include finger-pointing at finger-pointers in that. )
" It's not for me to say" is a good line to remember.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
He was the best that he could be for his time.
Which is easy for us to say with inclusive, postmodern hindsight.
We must learn from his mistake.
And not say away with anyone, especially those who insist on being our enemies.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
HughWillRidMee wrote:
...the miniscule, emerging, pre-Saul/Paul church appears to have regarded Jesus as less than a deity...
How would you know? The pre-Paul church left no records.
1 - they were Jews - with a monotheism that would have precluded Jesus as God
2 - Paul's alleged arguments about the need or otherwise for circumcision - his vision was of a separate organisation, not a reformed Judaism (and justification by faith rather than works of course).
3 - The writers of the New Testament seem to regard the resurrection as the work of the Father who raised Jesus from the dead rather than Jesus defeating the devil and escaping hell.
3 - The concept of the trinity first appears around 110 CE and is an argument developed to explain away difficulties in reconciling then existing scripture.
4 - the early concepts of a Trinity were various - including Jesus, Father and Spirit but also God, His Word and His Wisdom.
5 - Tertullian's is said to be the first recorded use of "Trinity" which he defined as Father, Son and Holy Ghost and that was over 200 years after the birth of Jesus.
5 - Arianism was still potent at Nicaea (325 CE)
OK - it's not a compelling argument but it's based on better (if only somewhat) sources/assumption than exist for the opposing viewpoint.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
HughWillRidMee wrote:
...the miniscule, emerging, pre-Saul/Paul church appears to have regarded Jesus as less than a deity...
How would you know? The pre-Paul church left no records.
1 - they were Jews - with a monotheism that would have precluded Jesus as God
No, you said SEEMS to. That means (in normalspeak) there was some evidence you took to be an indication of it. This is more on the lines of "they must have" not "they seem to."
quote:
3 - The writers of the New Testament seem to regard the resurrection as the work of the Father who raised Jesus from the dead rather than Jesus defeating the devil and escaping hell.
The writers of the New Testament aren't the pre-Paul church; they're the during-Paul and post-Paul church.
And so on. No, there is no "seems to" because the pre-Pauline church left no records. Your arguments are all arguments from "they must have" or from silence. There is nothing to seem because there is no evidence.
quote:
OK - it's not a compelling argument but it's based on better (if only somewhat) sources/assumption than exist for the opposing viewpoint.
But that's not what I asked.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Hughwillridmee, did you notice that your 1. and 4. contradict each other? Because the concept of God as somehow both singular and plural--God and his Word, God and his Wisdom, the Name, the Shekinah, the Angel of the Lord--all of that is actually Old Testament. And the tension was just as apparent to the OT believers as it is to us today.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
<snip> And the tension was just as apparent to the OT believers as it is to us today.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Knew someone was going to call me on that. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
First, just the simple stuff--they can read the Scriptures (hear them, whatever) and see the weirdness too. Second, Hebrew does have marked singulars and plurals, unlike (say) Vietnamese--so phrases like "Let us make man in our image" (singular) are going to come through. Then there are the weirdnesses like in Psalm 2--"Kiss the S/son, lest he be angry..." (whose son? who dat?) and other mind-twisting images like the Wisdom of God in Proverbs who was with him (WITH him?) at creation like a little child (or a master workman, whichever you prefer). It's just odd to have God's wisdom so personified it can actually be "with" him as opposed to simply "being him"--and not just one striking image, but the same kind of thing scattered all through the OT, with references to God's Glory/Wisdom/Name as practically person-of-his-own (dang these plural/singular problems!).
Then random assorted weirdnesses, like Proverbs 30:4:
quote:
Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!
I mean, "what is his son's name?" That's a pretty random sort of thing to say, isn't it? You could make a case for "what is his name, and his father's name?" because a father's name (patronymic) is simply an extra means of identification for the person you're really interested in. But who goes around identifying themselves by their son's name? (actually Vietnamese do, but that's a different story...)Why even bring it up at all?
And the most famous one Jesus brought up himself, quoting David in the Psalm: "The Lord said to my Lord..." where the second Lord is clearly David's descendant and yet some sort of divine figure. I really doubt Jesus was the first Jew ever to remark on this weirdness. Betcha the rabbis had been chewing on that one for some time...
Then we've got these totally freaky Angel(s) of the Lord (dang, that should have been singular, probably, bad theologian, LC!) which sometimes are apparently = to God himself, and other times maybe not; and they/he get/s cagey about revealing his/their name to people who ask. "Why do you ask my Name, seeing that it is wonderful?" And the C/commander of the Lord's Army, who apparently accept worship from Joshua and says he ain't on nobody's side (the question is apparently who is on HIS side)...
If you (me) really want to get down to annoying grammatical levels, there's even the alternating use of El/Elohim, the singular and plural forms of a major OT name for God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I would like to see what the Rabbis said about those things. Sadly we don't have a lot of Talmud scholars on the Ship. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
You are no doubt aware, however, that "kiss the son" is a questionable translation, seeing as "bar" occurs all of 4 times in the MT, three of them in the same verse in the post-exilic codicil to Proverbs, and it doesn't have either the direct-object marker or the direct-article prefix. The LXX has "accept correction."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I know it's the Aramaic form, saw a intensely scholarly nitpick on the subject last year but can't recall the details now, woe's me... the brain is going...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Sorry, not "direct-article prefix" but "definite-article prefix."
I'll look forward to your elucidation when your brain comes back online.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'll send you a PM with what little I know of the source, as my brain won't be online again for a long, long time. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'll send you a PM with what little I know of the source, as my brain won't be online again for a long, long time.
Yes, best to end the tangent. Sorry everybody! As you were!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0