[net.religion] Idolatry and Christianity

yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (12/02/84)

From pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Sun Feb  6 01:28:16 206
Subject: Re: Idolatry

[from Yiri's first article:]
>This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary,
>saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the
>traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc.
>It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'.

[my response:]
}If the images are used for illustrative purposes rather than worship, I
}don't think we can call them idols.  (There is and Orthodox synagogue here
}in Columbus that has some of the most beautiful stained glass I have ever
}seen depicting major events in the Old Testament Scriptures.)  The accuracy
}of the illustration can be brought into question.  I can't remember seeing
}a nativity scene where the figures of the family really looked Jewish.
}Same goes for paintings of Jesus.  But I digress.  These images, though they
}be of those with religious significance--may only serve a purpose similar to
}the statue of Lincoln at the memorial in D.C.

-----------------------
* Yiri responded:
* Go and study that stained glass again. Is there any image of anything
* which the Jews worship? I can tell you right here and now you will not
* find such a thing in those windows. How can I be so confident? It is
* because this is so universally understood in Judaism... and has always
* been. Illustrative or not, the prohibition is against making the
* images as well - that is ALSO idolatry. If Lincoln were worshipped,
* then that too would be idolatry. You have used an analogous analogy.
* I repeat again. It IS idolatry.
-----------------------

You are right in that there is no image of God depicted in the windows.
But there is one of Moses.  You said before that idolotry encompasses
images of apostles, saints, Mary, and angels.  It is true that (except
possiblly for some Roman Catholics) Christians do not worship any of these
figures and repudiate the practice as unchristian (certainly unscriptural).
So the depiction of them in art may be analogous picturing Moses
receiving the Commandments.  There is no idolotry inherently involved
here and the pictures are not claimed to be an actual depiction, only a
symbolic one.  Who really knows what Moses, Jesus or the Apostles actually
looked like or how some of the scenes actually appeared?

************************
* Yiri responds (12-02):
* Moses is not worshipped by Jews. The 'saints', Mary and angels are
* worshipped by Christians. It is not possible to speak of Christianity
* which excepts the Roman Catholics - as much as you would like and as
* much as you (I use 'you' collectively a lot) vehemently insist that
* you can. The historical facts are that all of Christianity sprang from
* the Roman Catholics... you can get that information from almost any
* good encyclopedia and no reputable scholar of note (Christian or 
* otherwise) even attempts to refute this. Protestantism, etc. are no
* more than adaptations/reforms of/on Roman Catholicism. This is also
* why there is no link-up between Christianity and the N'tzarim. The
* only way to establish a legitimate link-up would be to abandon the
* counterfeit Christianity and return to Judaism and start there. Thus,
* the difference is that Christians are making depictions of entities
* worshipped by Christians (certainly paintings of Jesus are a clear
* illustration though the others still are also idolatrous) and using
* these images in their worship while Jews do not. 
************************

With regard to nativity scenes, I think the same principle applies.
Do Christians worship a "baby Jesus"?  I hope not.  The scene depicts
a historical event that undergirds the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation--
God's actual entry into history in order to redeem man.  The figure
of the child is just that--a child.  It is not supposed to be an actual image
of Jesus, but an illustration that God did enter our history as a child.
I would agree that attaching any more significance to it than that
constitues idolotry.  But the idolotry is in the heart of the idoloters
not in the image itself.  Yiri mentioned the example of the Serpent which
was not made to be an idol but had to be destroyed when people treated
it as one.

*************************
* Yiri responds (12-02):
* One of the points I'm trying to help you see is that what you think
* about a Jewish definition you borrowed changes nothing. The Jewish
* definition was/is that depicting an entity of woship is idolatry and
* *NO* explanation changes or justifies it. Whether or not it is supposed
* to be an "actual image of Jesus" is, first of all, not resolved and
* secondly, irrelevant. There is no question but that it represents the
* 'baby Jesus' to Christians in the main. It is idolatry whether or not
* you (individually this time) attach any more significance to it. From
* a Jewish point of view (which is the only relevant view regarding
* things borrowed from Torah), one may not imitate the ways of the 
* pagans anyway. So it is impossible to speak of enjoying (or whatever
* you wish to substitute for 'enjoying') an idol of the pagans because
* you don't attach significance to it, etc. Idolatry is EITHER/BOTH in
* the heart of the idolater and in the image. 
**************************

[from me:]
}It seems to me that a nativity scene is not put up for the purposes of
}worship, but for more historical and cultural purposes.  The traditional
}raison d'etre for Christmas festivities centered around the Christ.  It
}is ostensibly getting much less so every year.  More and more the importance
}of Christmas seems to be keeping our economy moving.  Perhaps we should
}replace the nativity scene with a model of the Federal Reserve Bank. :-(
}
}			"In God we trust"

************************
* Yiri responds:
* Whether it is for the purposes of worship or not is not the
* distinguishing factor. It is an image of something which is
* worshipped. That is idolatry. I don't know how many different ways
* this will have to be said for it to be understood. The prohibition
* of idolatry is against the making of any kind of image/painting, 
* etc. of an entity of worship. Not even angels can be depicted.
* That too is idolatry. You won't find those in the stained glass
* windows of the orthodox synagogue either. The obvious questions
* to come up are the kh'ruvim on the Ark of the Covenant and the
* bronze serpent. No one really knows what a kh'ruvim (cherubim)
* was/is so that cannot intelligently be pursued. As for the bronze
* serpent, it actually got too close to being worshipped and had to
* be destroyed for that reason. 
*************************

But why have any images at all, knowing man's tendancy toward idolotry?
And why then have them put over the Ark and in Solomon's temple?  They
were surly a depiction of *something* (every image is) and had some
religious significance by virtue of where they were placed.

*************************
* Yiri responds (12-02):
* This question is leading away from the original issue and I don't
* follow tangents which misdirect attention away from the original
* point. Whether or not Judaism handles idolatry correctly has 
* nothing to do with whether or not Christianity does. (Besides, there 
* are many instances in the Jewish Bible of our mistakes.) One of the
* reasons for this is that I find it objectionable to my conscience
* to "teach Judaism" to pagans whose interests are only in defending
* their counterfeit paganism. I limit my "teaching" to exposing flaws
* in the counterfeit religion but I avoid "teaching Judaism". If you
* want this kind of information you might inquire on the Jewish net.
* I still don't want to teach there either unless you are genuinely
* seeking truth - and that presupposes you are willing to abandon
* Christianity or deal with the assertions of its counterfeit-cy.
* The definition I gave you of idolatry stands and there is no conflict
* with the questions you raise in Judaism. You can accept that or
* reject it as you wish. The Jewish definition, when borrowed, still
* remains the correct Jewish definition and cannot be changed retro-
* actively by the borrower.
**************************

As for the serpent, God instructed Moses to make it and the people
to look upon in in order that they might be delivered from deadly
snake bites.  Why would God do this?  Such an action could naturally
lead to idolization of the snake; which it seems to have done.  It seems
that the Israelites had been burning incense to it for some time
by the time Hezekiah destroyed it.  Why would God tolerate such an
image being made and focused upon in the first place.  Perhaps the
history of the snake served as a good lesson against idolotry.  But
if so, that seems to indicate that idolotry is not in the making of
images per se but in our treatment of them or making them with the
intent of worship.

**************************
* Yiri responds (12-02):
* I think you may be (partially) on the right track. While that was
* not the only purpose, it did illustrate that point. Yet, not all
* the Jews worshipped the snake... so why did it have to be destroyed?
* Why was it then idolatry and not to be tolerated by all Jews? Why
* didn't Moshe simply deal only with the ones with idolatry "in their
* heart"? The reason is because the snake had become idolatrous and
* therefore an abhorrence to God and all Jews. One of the mistakes
* which Christians make is to justify their paganism by relegating
* everything to "what is in my heart" when their actions make it
* quite clear that what is "in their heart" is quite contrary to
* what they themselves THINK is in their heart. There is no insin-
* cerity here in many cases. Rather, I see victims of deception -
* again related to the deceptions perpetrated in the birth of
* Christianity in the Roman Empire in its original counterfeitting.
*************************

*************************
* Yiri's earlier response:
*     You make a good point about the Fed. On the other hand, it
* should be noted that those who are idolatrous, have rejected
* Torah, and are following a counterfeit religion have some god
* other than the God of Israel. When you quote 'In God we trust'
* you should recognze that it is not in the God of Israel you
* are trusting but 'In god you trust'. Of course, there is no
* reason you have to continue that way. You are welcome to come
* and worship the God of Israel if you wish to do it the way He
* requires. But it is folly to think you are worshipping Him while
* being idolatrous, rejecting His Torah, desecrating the Sabbath
* He sanctified and preferring Sun-god-day of the Romans (see
* article in Biblical Archaeology Review), preferring pagan
* holidays to His festivals, eating unclean foods prohibited by
* His complete and perfect Torah, etc. No, it is not Him you
* worship. You worship the god of Dan. 7 who changed the times,
* the seasons, and the laws.
************************

I'm afraid I used the quote in a cynical manner.  I think the continuance
of this inscription on our money is hypocritical.  I would like to
see it removed.  (That is also my reason for not favoring nativity
scenes--hypocrisy, not idolotry.)

As for your insistence that I do not worship the one true God, I will
just register my disagreement with that point and let your opinion be
the last word (as it almost invariably is anyway).  I certainly don't
worship any Roman gods just because I worship on a particular day of
the week.  If I used another word instead of "sunday" (like you do for
"saturday") when speaking of its religious significance, would that
make a difference?  I see no particular significance in which day we
use.  As to which is the seventh day (and even whether there are seven
days in a week) depends on what calendar you use.  I don't see how the
"seven days of creation" could have been of the same duration as we
measure our days.  I "esteem all days alike", myself.  The times and
the seasons are what they are.  To claim that they are what we call them
is reification.  I think that to reserve one day out of every
seven upholds the spirit of the Law.  As Jesus said, "The Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath".
-- 
The "resurrected",

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd

***************************
* Yiri resonds (12-02):
* I certainly understand that you may not KNOWINGLY worship a Roman
* god... but until you deal with the counterfeitting, it remains that
* you do whether or not you know it. Whether the 1st days were of the
* same duration is irrelevant. When God made us, He instructed us that
* He *Personally* sanctified the seventh day and made it holy above the
* other 6 days in remembrance of His works of creation. The change to
* the sun-god-day was made by the Romans who worshipped the sungod...
* just as the adoption of Christmas from the birthday of the sungod
* Mithra was also "revised" to be the supposed birthday of this "new"
* savior idea the Jews had - and even though the historical Y'shua
* was born in late May!!! I keep repeating: "Jesus" and Y'shua are NOT
* the same!!! Y'shua was a historical Jew. "Jesus" is an image counter-
* feitted by the Romans to match their culture and desires... and I
* repeat again also: there is no link-up. Read the other articles.
* As for your quote of "Jesus", this says nothing about disregarding
* or desecrating the Sabbath. If you study the historical Y'shua 
* with the Jewish perspective/frame of reference/insight that I keep
* talking about, you would learn that Y'shua not only kept and taught
* the Sabbath himself, his followers also kept it right up until the
* Christians killed them for it!!! In fact, if you REALLY cared about
* the historical Y'shua instead of the Roman god Jesus, you would 
* probably be quite upset over his being so diametrically misrepre-
* sented as a Torah-less/anti-Torah figure like Jesus IS.
*********************************

bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (12/03/84)

In article <ucf-cs.1785> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes:

> The 'saints', Mary and angels are worshipped by Christians. It is not
> possible to speak of Christianity which excepts the Roman Catholics -
> as much as you would like and as much as you (I use 'you' collectively
> a lot) vehemently insist that you can. The historical facts are that
> all of Christianity sprang from the Roman Catholics... you can get that
> information from almost any good encyclopedia and no reputable scholar
> of note (Christian or otherwise) even attempts to refute this.
> Protestantism, etc. are no more than adaptations/reforms of/on Roman
> Catholicism.

Yiri seems to have overstepped the bound of his knowledge on this one.
Many Christian sects, most notably the Mormons, specifically claim a
different lineage than that of the Roman Catholic church.  The
Christian sect I was raised in and the set of beliefs I claim today
(reread my article in net.religion.christian) both claim an independent
legitimacy from the Apostolic regime.  Paul is correct.  Most
protestant sects do not worship the saints and it's largely irrelevant
as to whether our forbears did.  If it *isn't* irrelevant, as Yiri
claims, than we must certainly all be accountable for the image of the
Serpent, consort to the Goddess, that keeps otherwise unaccountably
being mentioned in Genesis and Exodus.

If we accept Yiri's historical point (which I am inclined to do) I still
don't know that it has any theological significance.  The reworking
of history, historical figures and Deities to suit one's own purposes is
in the grand tradition of religious revolution.  So is killing off the
adherents to the religion you are endeavoring to supplant.

Judaism is, in some sense, guilty of precisely the same actions toward
the Serpent, a venerable Deity and the symbol of wisdom in cultures which
predate Judaism.  (Ever notice how legends of snakes in trees are a common
thread in religious thought?  It gives one pause, but I digress...)
The Serpent got a bad rap in Genesis for doing his wisdom number on Adam
and Eve, later his adherents got axed by the Jews, no doubt for observing
their faith.

I'm not trying to make a religious point here, merely an historical one.
Historically at some point the counterfit ceases to become that and 
becomes a reality of its own.  Christianity remains a viable system of
thought, whether or not Jesus was an historical figure.  Judaism remains
a viable system of thought, whether or not Abraham and Moses were
historical figures.  Islam remains a viable system of though, whether or
not Mohommed was as portrayed.  Buddism, Shinto, Taoism, Hindu, are all
very real and formidable irrespective of the veracity of their origins.

So, I'll go along with Yiri's premise.  Jesus was a Roman counterfit and
the Christian Roman's killed of the Torah-observant N'tsarim.  What
next?  It doesn't change what I believe, for that exists irrespective
of history.  I feel no strong compulsion to become a Torah-observant Jew
(though I hold great respect for such) because it is not my cultural
heritage.  What do you do after you've done banging your head against
a wall that will not, can not, give way?


-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch