• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The modern approach to church service - and it's commercialism

RGacky3 said:
Of caorse it could, if the temple needed to purchase something from other parts of the Roman empire, they use roman coinage, not Temple coinage. Also for temple authorities, they had to use Roman coinage to purchase stuff outside the temple.
Click to expand...

Of course, you are wrong. Look at what you are saying, it is nonsensical and self-contradictory. It would have been sacrilegious for the Jewish priesthood to use pagan money. You are also falsely assuming that the money changers were priests of the temple, which they were not. They were third parties. So you are wrong for two distinct reasons that are obvious to anyone with an understanding of the relevant history.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Of course, you are wrong. Look at what you are saying, it is nonsensical and self-contradictory. It would have been sacrilegious for the Jewish priesthood to use pagan money. You are also falsely assuming that the money changers were priests of the temple, which they were not. They were third parties. So you are wrong for two distinct reasons that are obvious to anyone with an understanding of the relevant history.
Click to expand...

It would be sacrilegious to use pagan money IN THE TEMPLE!!! Not in the greater area of the Roman Empire

I wans't assuming they were temples at all.
 
RGacky3 said:
It would be sacrilegious to use pagan money IN THE TEMPLE!!! Not in the greater area of the Roman Empire

I wans't assuming they were temples at all.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. Pagan money could not be used to pay the temple tax, period. Thus the money changers made their living honestly converting pagan images to inoffensive Jewish money. They did a real service, not just coveerting money from pagan to Jewish by back again from Jewish to pagan. They even protected the priests at the temple from counterfeit coins.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You are simply wrong. Pagan money could not be used to pay the temple tax, period. Thus the money changers made their living honestly converting pagan images to inoffensive Jewish money. They did a real service, not just coveerting money from pagan to Jewish by back again from Jewish to pagan. They even protected the priests at the temple from counterfeit coins.
Click to expand...

I never claimed pagan money could be used to pay the temple tax ... I claimed that tample authorities could use non temple coinage OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE, which is clearly true.

Pay attention.
 
RGacky3 said:
I never claimed pagan money could be used to pay the temple tax ... I claimed that tample authorities could use non temple coinage OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE, which is clearly true.

Pay attention.
Click to expand...

Pay attention, ha. You are spouting unresearched nonsense, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The money changers were third parties, the temple tax couldn't be paid in pagan money because the temple authorities had no use for pagan money, since it bore graven images of false gods. So, you are the one who needs to pay attention and dislodge you made up nonsensical beliefs. Allow me to educate you.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Pay attention, ha. You are spouting unresearched nonsense, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The money changers were third parties, the temple tax couldn't be paid in pagan money because the temple authorities had no use for pagan money, since it bore graven images of false gods. So, you are the one who needs to pay attention and dislodge you made up nonsensical beliefs. Allow me to educate you.
Click to expand...

The temple tax couldn't be paid in pagen money because Images could not be brought into the temple, temple authorities were certainly allowd to use pagan money OUTSIDE the temple since temple coinage wasn't accepted in the greater Roman Empire.

What you're arguing is essencially the equivalent of saying that Casino employees never use dollars, and only use chips.

It's total nonsense.

Pagan Coinage not being allowed in the temple =/= Pagan Coinage NEVER being allwed to be used by individual temple authorities for everyday life.
 
RGacky3 said:
The temple tax couldn't be paid in pagen money because Images could not be brought into the temple, temple authorities were certainly allowd to use pagan money OUTSIDE the temple since temple coinage wasn't accepted in the greater Roman Empire.

What you're arguing is essencially the equivalent of saying that Casino employees never use dollars, and only use chips.

It's total nonsense.

Pagan Coinage not being allowed in the temple =/= Pagan Coinage NEVER being allwed to be used by individual temple authorities for everyday life.
Click to expand...

What you are arguing is logically valid but unsound. You are just guessing whereas so am knowledgeable about the facts. Put another way, you are just making things up. What actually happened in real life is that pagan money was exchanged for shekels, then used to pay the temple tax for a fee, the profit going to the third party money changers. The priests of the temple would have been commuting serious sacrilege if they took the pagan money under any circumstances.

You have created an interesting fantasy to support your argument but it has no basis in reality. If you ever bother to research the matter then you will see that I am right.
 
Guy Incognito said:
What you are arguing is logically valid but unsound. You are just guessing whereas so am knowledgeable about the facts. Put another way, you are just making things up. What actually happened in real life is that pagan money was exchanged for shekels, then used to pay the temple tax for a fee, the profit going to the third party money changers. The priests of the temple would have been commuting serious sacrilege if they took the pagan money under any circumstances.

You have created an interesting fantasy to support your argument but it has no basis in reality. If you ever bother to research the matter then you will see that I am right.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is true, but you're not discussing what I'm talking about.

The Temple Authorities, WHEN NOT AT THE TEMPLE, were absolutely allowed to, and did, use pagan coinage, so that they could purchase things that that you needed to purchase WITH pagan coinage.

I'm not saying AT the temple, I'm saying OUTSIDE OF THE TEMPLE.

Unless of course you're arguing that temple priests or authorities never purchased anything ever outside the temple.
 
RGacky3 said:
What you're saying is true, but you're not discussing what I'm talking about.

The Temple Authorities, WHEN NOT AT THE TEMPLE, were absolutely allowed to, and did, use pagan coinage, so that they could purchase things that that you needed to purchase WITH pagan coinage.

I'm not saying AT the temple, I'm saying OUTSIDE OF THE TEMPLE.

Unless of course you're arguing that temple priests or authorities never purchased anything ever outside the temple.
Click to expand...

Fire of all, this is no longer an argument, it is a lecture. I am educating you. Feel free to take notes.

Secondly, whether the temple priests could use pagan coinage for personal purposes is academic, since that never be and an issue in practice. Most likely the priests wouldn't have so much as touched graven images, but that is neither here nor there. The temple priests were collecting a temple tax, and it had to be in inoffensive currency. Collecting graven images as profit in a currency exchange would have been at odds with this.

The money changers were essential licensed professionals. Their function was critical precisely because the temple could not traffic in the pagan money that was so prevelant. You mistake is based on an accretion of misconceptions that are pervasive and based on medieval anti-Semitic stereotypes that the money changers were in league with the priest a to gouge the peasants. This is false, as we now understand through modern scholarship.

In fact, the money changes were lauded in their time, and a common Jewish saying of the time encouraged people to "act like a money changer," which is to say to conduct heir affairs honestly.

The money changers were honest, third party businessmen who were plying their trade in the temple. That is the problem, that they were profit seeking in the temple, which, as Jesus instructed us, is the wrong place to conduct business, even if it is honest. Contrary to popular myth, the money changers were not gouging, they are providing a valuable service. Contrar to your argument, they are not fund raising for the temple, either. It was a personal profit-seeking business.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Both of you need to stop the baiting comments and tone it way down or you will be removed from this thread.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Fire of all, this is no longer an argument, it is a lecture. I am educating you. Feel free to take notes.

Secondly, the whether the temple priests could use pagan coinage for personal purposes is academic, since that never be and an issue in practice. Most likely the priests wouldn't have so much as touched graven images, but that is neither here nor there. The temple priests were collecting a temple tax, and it had to be in inoffensive currency. Collecting graven images as profit in a currency exchange would have been at odds with this.

The money changers were essential licensed professionals. Their function was critical precisely because the temple could not traffic in the pagan money that was so prevelant. You mistake is based on an accretion of misconceptions that are pervasive and based on medieval anti-Semitic stereotypes that the money changers were in league with the priest a to gouge the peasants. This is false, as we now understand through modern scholarship.

In fact, the money changes were lauded in their time, and a common Jewish saying of the time encouraged people to "act like a money changer," which is to say to conduct heir affairs honestly.

The money changers were honest, third part businessmen who were plying their trade in the temple. That is the problem, that they were profit seeking in the temple, which, as Jesus instructed us, is the wrong place to conduct business, even if it is honest. Contrary to popular myth, the money changers were not gouging, they are providing a valuable service. Contrar to your argument, they are not fund raising for the temple, either. It was a personal profit-seeking business.
Click to expand...

Whether the temple priests used pagan coinage for personal purposes was THE WHOLE POINT OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, and it's obvious that they would if they were to engage in civil life, since pagan coinage was what was used for everyday life outside the temple.

WHICH MEANS that the profits from the money changers could EASILY have been used by the temple authorities OUTSIDE OF THE TEMPLE, (obviously not in the temple), which would explain why this action made the Chief Priests want to kill him right after the action (According to every gospel account of the matter).

No one said that the money changers wern't doing something that was necessary, the problem was how they were doing it.
 
RGacky3 said:
Whether the temple priests used pagan coinage for personal purposes was THE WHOLE POINT OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, and it's obvious that they would if they were to engage in civil life, since pagan coinage was what was used for everyday life outside the temple.

WHICH MEANS that the profits from the money changers could EASILY have been used by the temple authorities OUTSIDE OF THE TEMPLE, (obviously not in the temple), which would explain why this action made the Chief Priests want to kill him right after the action (According to every gospel account of the matter).

No one said that the money changers wern't doing something that was necessary, the problem was how they were doing it.
Click to expand...

No, the problem was where they were doing it. And no, the question of whether priests handled Roman money in their personal capacity is irrelevant since it doesn't come up. The question is whether the priests used Roman money in their official capacity, which they did not. Indeed they could not, since Roman money invariably bore pagan images.

If what you are saying was true, that the profit from the money changers went to the temple, then there would have been no need for money changers at all. The temple tax could have been paid in Roman currency. That is, after all, what you are saying. You argument is absurd on its face. The money changers kep their profits for themselves, as honest businessmen are titled to do. If the money changers were adjuncts of the temple, as you would have it, it would be a sacrilege. Their profits were in pagan currency, which the officials of the temple were forbidden to take.

Do you see yet how what you are saying makes no sense? It is very tedious having to explain this over and over again. Perhaps, instead of trying desperately to make your failed argument work, you can just ask me questions about what parts of the actual history you are failing to comprehend. It will be more efficient.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, the problem was where they were doing it. And no, the question of whether priests handled Roman money in their personal capacity is irrelevant since it doesn't come up. The question is whether the priests used Roman money in their official capacity, which they did not. Indeed they could not, since Roman money invariably bore pagan images.

If what you are saying was true, that the profit from the money changers went to the temple, then there would have been no need for money changers at all. The temple tax could have been paid in Roman currency. That is, after all, what you are saying. You argument is absurd on its face. The money changers kep their profits for themselves, as honest businessmen are titled to do. If the money changers were adjuncts of the temple, as you would have it, it would be a sacrilege. Their profits were in pagan currency, which the officials of the temple were forbidden to take.

Do you see yet how what you are saying makes no sense? It is very tedious having to explain this over and over again. Perhaps, instead of trying desperately to make your failed argument work, you can just ask me questions about what parts of the actual history you are failing to comprehend. It will be more efficient.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that it is 100% possible that the profits went partially to the temple leadership, not the temple itself.

No one is arguing whether or not priests could handle pagan money in the temple, or in their role as priests (neither can dealers in casinos recieve dollars, only chips, but they are still paid in dollars).

Their profits were in pagen currency which the officials in the temple were forbidden to take IN THE TEMPLE and IN THEIR ROLE AS TEMPLE PRIESTS, but they were perfectly allowed to take the pagen currency outside the temple, and not as payment for temple services.

You're arguing against a strawman here. No one is saying the priests could take pagan money in the temple for temple services, I've never argued that.
 
O
RGacky3 said:
What I'm saying is that it is 100% possible that the profits went partially to the temple leadership, not the temple itself.

No one is arguing whether or not priests could handle pagan money in the temple, or in their role as priests (neither can dealers in casinos recieve dollars, only chips, but they are still paid in dollars).

Their profits were in pagen currency which the officials in the temple were forbidden to take IN THE TEMPLE and IN THEIR ROLE AS TEMPLE PRIESTS, but they were perfectly allowed to take the pagen currency outside the temple, and not as payment for temple services.

You're arguing against a strawman here. No one is saying the priests could take pagan money in the temple for temple services, I've never argued that.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a typo at first by I see now that you truly don't know how to spell "pagan."

The money changers are well understood and you have had everything thoroughly explained to you. If you want to persist in your misunderstanding that is your business. If, however, you want to learn something, here is a good article you can read:
"Be ye approved money changers!" Reexamining the social contexts of the saying and its interpretation. - Free Online Library

Please take some time and educate yourself.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
O

I thought it was a typo at first by I see now that you truly don't know how to spell "pagan."

The money hangers are well understood and you have had everything thoroughly explained to you. If you want to persist in your misunderstanding that is your business. If, however, you want to learn something, here is a good article you can read:
"Be ye approved money changers!" Reexamining the social contexts of the saying and its interpretation. - Free Online Library

Please take some time and educate yourself.
Click to expand...

What you linked me is refering to non cannonical writings, i.e. writings that are much later than the Gospel accounts where he (Jesus) is quoted as saying "Be ye approved money chanagers," Nothing in the article contradicts anything I said, infact it makes a very close link between the temple leadership and the money changers.

All it's saying is that money changers were not necessarily frowned apon apriori ...
 
RGacky3 said:
What you linked me is refering to non cannonical writings, i.e. writings that are much later than the Gospel accounts where he (Jesus) is quoted as saying "Be ye approved money chanagers," Nothing in the article contradicts anything I said, infact it makes a very close link between the temple leadership and the money changers.

All it's saying is that money changers were not necessarily frowned apon apriori ...
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a close link between money changers and temple leadership, because the money changers we're authorized by the priests to conduct their business there in order to facilitate a necessary service. The very existence of the money changers proves you wrong because they would have been rendered unnecessary if the priests were able to handle pagan money. If you actually read the article you would see that it confirms what I have been saying, that the money changers were disinterested third parties, not connected to the priesthood. See the sentence prior to footnote 22 in the article.

It amazes me how committed you are to your false argument. Are you so dead set on winning an argument that you jus don't care about facts?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, there is a close link between money changers and temple leadership, because the money changers we're authorized by the priests to conduct their business there in order to facilitate a necessary service. The very existence of the money changers proves you wrong because they would have been rendered unnecessary if the priests were able to handle pagan money. If you actually read the article you would see that it confirms what I have been saying, that the money changers were disinterested third parties, not connected to the priesthood. See the sentence prior to footnote 22 in the article.

It amazes me how committed you are to your false argument. Are you so dead set on winning an argument that you jus don't care about facts?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, I said, I NEVER SAID THAT THE PRIESTS WERE ABLE TO HANDLE PAGAN MONEY INSIDE THE TEMPLE, they were not, obviously, I havn't argued that once, my point is there is NO evidence that temple authorities didn't use pagan money outside the temple as everyone else did.

You're fighting a strawman here.
 
RGacky3 said:
Jesus Christ, I said, I NEVER SAID THAT THE PRIESTS WERE ABLE TO HANDLE PAGAN MONEY INSIDE THE TEMPLE, they were not, obviously, I havn't argued that once, my point is there is NO evidence that temple authorities didn't use pagan money outside the temple as everyone else did.

You're fighting a strawman here.
Click to expand...

No, there is no straw man, you are simply unable to grasp how wrong the things you are saying truly are.

If the priests were able to collect money for official temple business outside of the temple there would have been no need for the money changers at all. The priests could not take pagan money anywhere on earth for temple purposes. The money changers were a necessesity for precisely this reason.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, there is no straw man, you are simply unable to grasp how wrong the things you are saying truly are.

If the priests were able to collect money for official temple business outside of the temple there would have been no need for the money changers at all. The priests could not take pagan money anywhere on earth for temple purposes. The money changers were a necessesity for precisely this reason.
Click to expand...

If it's corruption then it's obviously not official temple buisiness.

It is a strawman because I never claimed that they collected money in the temple for temple sacrifices from the money changers.
 
Goshin said:
Not really my thing, but to each his own.


I prefer smaller country churches with a less formatted atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Sounds better. I would prefer less ritual, and more Bible. The ceremony and pomp never impressed me. Jesus stopped and spoke to the people. He did seem to act a bit different in the synagogue though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom