Christ is Risen!

[pcosmar]

This is coming from a Witch. It's sad that I know more about your Bible and Messiah than you do.''
Blessed be.

You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe--and they shudder.

It is sad that many Christians are both misinformed,, and misled.

 

[chrono187]

You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe--and they shudder.

It is sad that many Christians are both misinformed,, and misled.

I have great respect for Scripture, and I find the character of Jesus as depicted, to be honorable and inspiring. He stood up against Tyranny, both Religious and State, and died, never having surrendered to either- or to 'Satan' temptations. Yeshua/Jesus is a true Hero, and role-model of the ages. Timeless, from antiquity to the contemporary age.

However, I also believe it's important, if One must use graven images, to at least have the images be accurate, reflecting what Scriptures affirm. Does anyone here disagree with that sentiment? Or believe the whole premise or foundation of my claims to be untrue? I'd love to hear from you.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If we're going to post images of Jesus, the depiction should be accurate according to Scripture. These images are false, and I imagine worshiping a false image of God to be a Sin? I could be wrong, but that is my presumption.

They are not false and not worshiped. Please review the thread on icons so you can learn the difference between veneration and worship. Iconoclasm is a very serious heresy.

 

[TER]

I have great respect for Scripture, and I find the character of Jesus as depicted, to be honorable and inspiring. He stood up against Tyranny, both Religious and State, and died, never having surrendered to either- or to 'Satan' temptations. Yeshua/Jesus is a true Hero, and role-model of the ages. Timeless, from antiquity to the contemporary age.

However, I also believe it's important, if One must use graven images, to at least have the images be accurate, reflecting what Scriptures affirm. Does anyone here disagree with that sentiment? Or believe the whole premise or foundation of my claims to be untrue? I'd love to hear from you.

The drawings of images of Christ are not graven images. They are drawn on 2 dimensional planes using lines and ink (pretty close to writing, actually)

The Scriptures (which are works inspired by God and created by the hands of men) are one part of Holy Tradition. It is a written tradition, using human typological symbols to form sentences to draw a picture in the mind of men what is being represented (by slashes of lines and dots and curves which are found in human written languages). In other words, the screen you are reading on are simply images (icons) on a flat surface. It is a picture to impression upon the observer (reader) what is revealed and being revealed. (Of course, two people can get two different 'pictures' in their mind, which happens often with the varying translations (which often fall far from the mark).

The Scriptures are the very foundation of the written Word of God, but do not constitute the whole of the picture. Just as it was with Israel in the Old Covenant, the two great pillars of the faith is the Written and the Oral Torah. Limiting oneself to the words of the Holy Scriptures misses much of the rest. (By the way, which canon or collection do you think a Christian should consider authoritative?)

The Christian Church has always held onto Holy Tradition (the paradosis, as taught by the Apostles, which means the handing-down). These are both written and oral, as St. Paul and the Apostolic Fathers attest to. Including in this is the story of Abgar who received the miraculous handkerchief with the image of the Lord upon it. Whereas people may ignore such legends as mere fantasies and make-believe, it is because they limit themselves to the books of the Holy Scriptures while ignoring the very life of the Church within this world and the extra-biblical, God-inspired works of the Holy Spirit within the body of the Saints.

If you like Jesus and think He is a great role-model, I am happy to hear it! In fact, He is not just a mere role-model, but the Creator and Finisher of Goodness. Jesus Christ is the God-Man, in flesh and blood, in whom men find forgiveness, resurrection, reconciliation and eternal life in His Good Kingdom.

The slight issue I have with you, friend, is that you seem to have a very modernist understanding of the Christian faith and seem to lack certain elementary facts regarding the life of the Christian Church and the teachings of God's beloved children as handed down continuously from the first centuries. Rather, you are making certain statements which demonstrate that there is much you still have not learned. Perhaps you should start looking a little more closer.

 

[TER]

Also, the Christian Church knows the image of Christ because in the 2000 years since the Holy Day of Pentecost, Christ has blessed many Saints by His visitation to them, and appearing to them in His resurrected and life-giving human body and flesh.

He did not have to have someone draw a painting of Him when He lived on the world, for He overcomes the world, and even now, He makes His face to be seen by those who truly love Him and come to Him in prayer and repentance.

 

[TER]

Until we become so blessed to have Him appear to us, then we can and should see Him the best we can, not merely on our walls and in our books and webpages, but in our minds, in our hearts and in the face of every neighbor of ours who is in need.

 

[chrono187]

Until we become so blessed to have Him appear to us, then we can and should see Him the best we can, not merely on our walls and in our books and webpages, but in our minds, in our hearts and in the face of every neighbor of ours who is in need.

Until we see him as the Black Man that he was, as clearly described in Scripture? The Bible already tells us what the 'Son of Man' looks/looked like. He was clearly described as a Man with African features. So says the Scriptures. As a Christian, should One not venerate or acknowledge what Jesus Actually looked like, and come to terms with the fact that the Messiah may not look anything like you?

http://biblehub.com/daniel/7-9.htm

"the hair of his head like the pure wool" (What 'Race' of Man has hair like Wool/Sheep-skin?)

http://biblehub.com/revelation/1-15.htm

"And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." (What Race of Man has skin like 'fine brass'?)

http://biblehub.com/john/8-32.htm

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

 

[chrono187]

Also, the Christian Church knows the image of Christ because in the 2000 years since the Holy Day of Pentecost, Christ has blessed many Saints by His visitation to them, and appearing to them in His resurrected and life-giving human body and flesh.

I think you're referring not to Christianity, but to the Catholic Church. Which is basically a Christian/Pagan hybrid Faith. As the Catholics, in fact, have Pagan holidays.. and practice symbolic Cannibalism with their Wine and Wafers. Eat of his flesh, and drink his blood..

Not only that, but people are taught to pray to the Saints.. which is classic idolatry.

 

[chrono187]

They are not false and not worshiped. Please review the thread on icons so you can learn the difference between veneration and worship. Iconoclasm is a very serious heresy.

Semantics. The point I'm making is simple. Whether you are venerating or worshiping, if the image you acknowledge is Cesare Borgia.. or any other Caucasian image, you are paying homage to a big fat lie.

 

[chrono187]

Iconoclasm is a very serious heresy.

But, if the "Iconoclasm" is representative of an objective Truth, then why would that be Sinful? Truth > Falsehoods.

 

[TER]

Until we see him as the Black Man that he was, as clearly described in Scripture? The Bible already tells us what the 'Son of Man' looks/looked like. He was clearly described as a Man with African features. So says the Scriptures. As a Christian, should One not venerate or acknowledge what Jesus Actually looked like, and come to terms with the fact that the Messiah may not look anything like you?

Did you just break the second commandment?

 

[chrono187]

Did you just break the second commandment?

Perhaps. But I am not a Christian, or a hypocrite. As I said, I am a Witch. An eclectic Witch. I am a practitioner of the Craft. However, here, I'm simply replacing the false images in previous pages of this thread, with a more accurate depiction that is representative of what Scripture says he looked like.

 

[TER]

Perhaps. But I am not a Christian, or a hypocrite. As I said, I am a Witch. An eclectic Witch. I am a practitioner of the Craft. However, here, I'm simply replacing the false images in previous pages of this thread, with a more accurate depiction that is representative of what Scripture says he looked like.

So why should I trust a 'Witch' to teach me about Christianity when you yourself are not a Christian and demonstrate a poor knowledge of the history of the Christian Church and the teachings of the Christian faith?

 

[chrono187]

So why should I trust a 'Witch' to teach me about Christianity when you yourself are not a Christian and demonstrate a poor knowledge of the history of the Christian Church and the teachings of the Christian faith?

I am a student, albeit a Lay student, of History and Theology. I do not limit myself or my spiritual understandings to any particular Faith, Dogma, or Belief system. My Own Path has brought me to the Ancient Esoteric Arts. The so called 'Occult', which is simply a Latin word which means 'Hidden' or 'Obscured from View'. Please stop referring to the Catholic Church as the Christian Church. We both know, or should know, that there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Despite that fact they are often confused as the same entity.

 

[chrono187]

But by all means, if you have another interpretation of the Scripture I quoted with respect to His physical features while on Earth, please feel free to Share.

Edit: But if you do so, please use Scripture to rebuttal, don't give me your subjective opinions/perspective.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Semantics. The point I'm making is simple. Whether you are venerating or worshiping, if the image you acknowledge is Cesare Borgia.. or any other Caucasian image, you are paying homage to a big fat lie.

But, if the "Iconoclasm" is representative of an objective Truth, then why would that be Sinful? Truth > Falsehoods.

Nonsense. Since you're obviously lazy, I'll link to the thread for you. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432958-Icons-are-not-idols

Here is the OP of the thread, just one of MANY posts in that thread for you to review before you come back to continue discussing this. (remember to quote and cite the specific post you disagree with when you get back to me)


http://www.stgeorgeaz.com/index.php?id=55
Do Orthodox icons border on idolatry?

In Orthodox Christianity, icons are never worshipped, but they are honored and venerated. Worship is reserved for God alone. The second Commandment says, "you shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness or anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4-5). The warnings here are, first, that we are not to depict images of things which are limited to heaven and therefore unseen, and second, we never bow down to or worship created, earthly things. Does this condemn all imagery in worship? The Scriptures tell us emphatically no!

Just five chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God, as recorded in Exodus 25, gives his divine blueprint, if you will, for the tabernacle. Specifically in verses 19 and 20 he commands images of cherubim to be placed above the mercy seat. Also, God promises to meet and speak with us through this imagery! (Ex.25:22)

In Exodus 26:1, Israel was commanded in no uncertain terms to weave "artistic designs of cherubim" into the tabernacle curtains. Are these images? Absolutely! In fact they could well be called Old Testament icons. And they are images which God commanded to be made.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Orthodox iconography never creates images of God the Father. If no one has seen God, then how can he be portrayed? To do so would border on idolatry. For, "no one has ever see God…" (Jn.1:18; cf Ex.33:20). Similarly, the Holy Spirit is never represented except as a dove, which we receive in the Baptismal accounts from Scripture.

The question, however, remains of what to do with the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. Can he be depicted in holy icons? Realizing that because no one has seen God the Father and does not know what he "looks like," he cannot be portrayed. However, the Son of God became a human being and can therefore be depicted in holy images since we know what humanity looks like. To deny the embodiment of Christ in image is tantamount to the refutation of the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming human). Simply put, because God became man, we are able to portray images of him for veneration. One will notice that no icon of Christ is a portrait trying to capture the subtleties of what the Lord looked like, but rather a symbolic representation of the Lord to teach us that in truth, God did "empty himself and take on the form of a servant for our salvation" (Phil.2:7).

Analogous to this is the representation in sacred icons of the saints. These men and women were faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ until their last breath and remain for us as examples of the Christian ideal. Their images offer us encouragement and renewed hope that to walk in the newness of life is possible! Again, no icons –or the saints themselves, for that matter—are ever worshipped. God alone is worthy to be praised. But we venerate their images and ask for their intercessory prayers that God might have mercy on our souls!

 

[chrono187]

So why should I trust a 'Witch'

Because I am using Your Scriptures as my foundation/debate format. I'm quoting the Biblical texts. We are having a discussion about 'God's Word', manifest.

 

[TER]

I am a student, albeit a Lay student, of History and Theology. I do not limit myself or my spiritual understandings to any particular Faith, Dogma, or Belief system. My Own Path has brought me to the Ancient Esoteric Arts. The so called 'Occult', which is simply a Latin word which means 'Hidden' or 'Obscured from View'. Please stop referring to the Catholic Church as the Christian Church. We both know, or should know, that there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Despite that fact they are often confused as the same entity.

But your posts reveal that your lay scholarship of (at least Christian theology and history) is fairly week.

Have I questioned or pretended to know more about the precepts and beliefs of your own religion than you do? Why do you do that with me?

 

[chrono187]

Nonsense. Since you're obviously lazy, I'll link to the thread for you. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432958-Icons-are-not-idols

Here is the OP of the thread, just one of MANY posts in that thread for you to review before you come back to continue discussing this. (remember to quote and cite the specific post you disagree with when you get back to me)


http://www.stgeorgeaz.com/index.php?id=55
Do Orthodox icons border on idolatry?

In Orthodox Christianity, icons are never worshipped, but they are honored and venerated. Worship is reserved for God alone. The second Commandment says, "you shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness or anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4-5). The warnings here are, first, that we are not to depict images of things which are limited to heaven and therefore unseen, and second, we never bow down to or worship created, earthly things. Does this condemn all imagery in worship? The Scriptures tell us emphatically no!

Just five chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God, as recorded in Exodus 25, gives his divine blueprint, if you will, for the tabernacle. Specifically in verses 19 and 20 he commands images of cherubim to be placed above the mercy seat. Also, God promises to meet and speak with us through this imagery! (Ex.25:22)

In Exodus 26:1, Israel was commanded in no uncertain terms to weave "artistic designs of cherubim" into the tabernacle curtains. Are these images? Absolutely! In fact they could well be called Old Testament icons. And they are images which God commanded to be made.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Orthodox iconography never creates images of God the Father. If no one has seen God, then how can he be portrayed? To do so would border on idolatry. For, "no one has ever see God…" (Jn.1:18; cf Ex.33:20). Similarly, the Holy Spirit is never represented except as a dove, which we receive in the Baptismal accounts from Scripture.

The question, however, remains of what to do with the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. Can he be depicted in holy icons? Realizing that because no one has seen God the Father and does not know what he "looks like," he cannot be portrayed. However, the Son of God became a human being and can therefore be depicted in holy images since we know what humanity looks like. To deny the embodiment of Christ in image is tantamount to the refutation of the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming human). Simply put, because God became man, we are able to portray images of him for veneration. One will notice that no icon of Christ is a portrait trying to capture the subtleties of what the Lord looked like, but rather a symbolic representation of the Lord to teach us that in truth, God did "empty himself and take on the form of a servant for our salvation" (Phil.2:7).

Analogous to this is the representation in sacred icons of the saints. These men and women were faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ until their last breath and remain for us as examples of the Christian ideal. Their images offer us encouragement and renewed hope that to walk in the newness of life is possible! Again, no icons –or the saints themselves, for that matter—are ever worshipped. God alone is worthy to be praised. But we venerate their images and ask for their intercessory prayers that God might have mercy on our souls!

Debate me with Scripture, but stay on topic. We're not exactly having a debate about iconography vs idolatry. That's not the subject matter of what I brought to the table. If you want to use Caucasian iconography with regards to the Christ, that's fine. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, those images are totally erroneous and not congruent with Scripture.

 

[chrono187]

But your posts reveal that your lay scholarship of (at least Christian theology and history) is fairly week.

Have I questioned or pretended to know more about the precepts and beliefs of your own religion than you do? Why do you do that with me?

1) I don't have a "Religion", so that statement is non-applicable.

2) You said my understanding is 'Week'. Do you see the irony in that?