Should Christians have images of Jesus/God/Biblical Characters?

[azuquita_morena]

Well at this point, this is becoming a difference in how one worships and loves discussion. The way I or someone else worship and love God may be different from yours. So one can't really say if someone has a strained relationship with God because they have a *different* way of respecting and loving Him.

However, for people who treat graven images and set up *shrines* to praise/light candles/worship/bow down to said image is where I believe the Bible draws the line. At that point, that's treating Him like some common pagan idol, and we can at least agree that is disrespectful.


Now, as I said before, I do believe (not 100% sure, but getting there) that God does look at the actions of each person and judges accordingly. Therefore, if He know that you aren't worshipping said image, then He would judge you or anybody else with that in mind. What I know is how I feel about this issue and what is good for me. So for me, I am perfectly content with an graven-image free life. I'm just making sure that I am letting God know that I am giving Him the upmost respect and in that way, I am expressing my love. I am also letting Him know that even though I don't know what He looks like, I do recognize Him as my Father (and Jesus as His Son), understand and live for His Word, and have a complete faith in and love for Him, regardless.

I consider God to BE my loved One. And throughout it all I consider Him and everything about Him to be sacred, but I also have a relationship where I feel like He is simply my Father. Honestly I think some people have a strained relationship with God because they make it so stiff and rigid and formalistic all in the name of being reverent that they forget that He wants to have a warm, loving relationship with us.

And you say you BELIEVE that there are people who worship those images, but do you know that for a FACT? Are you inside their head when they are worshipping or praying?

I like to see the images of God that have been depicted in various ways. But they don't play a role in my worship. They are just nice to look at. I guess I'm trying to say that I don't think simply having a picture is that serious. I don't know anyone who claims to worship the image they have on their wall. They just like having it there.

And in making the comparison between the photo of God and a photo of a family member, the point is that people can have those images around without giving them more weight than they deserve.

 

[Guitarhero]

With all this that is stated in this thread, and boy it's getting heavy lol, I would like to ask the following: How does the images play a role in your worship of God and following His Word? Are they even necessary?

Thanks for bringing it back on topic. I'll say that images are a part of it because they are represented in the sanctuary. The bible is upheld and displayed and read from as something tangible as well as spiritual. Necessary to have in the home? No. But I like them as a means of protection - holy objects (like having the bible displayed in the home and others items etc.) denoting that the world is a sacred space and that we are sacred beings - continuing that mindset from church to home and everywhere in between. I have them in my car as well. It's no guarantee of 100% holiness because we are flailing human beings. But it is not a distraction for me. Rather, it is something that brings my attention back to sacred space when I see them.

Would Joshua 7: help this discussion? What do people think this refers to? Incidentally, I was on YT and clicked a link for Benny Hinn. There was a girl wearing some witch's bracelet and he told her to take it off. Anyhoo, is this further evidence that there were objects that people used for destruction or false worship and had those things among them as opposed to anything they would have had to remind them to worship the one True God? Phylacteries (contain scripture) are worn on the forehead and leather strips on the forearm for prayer. They are kissed as a sign of respect for God's word, His presence etc. Is it wrong to have items/images used for blessing God? I'm asking the question again in view of the scripture below:

Joshua 7:12-13
That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.

"Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, 'Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it.

Joshus 6:18

But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it.

What were the items under the ban??? If the items could be judged as being able to be dedicated to for the Lord's use? The metal items were melted down and donated to the sanctuary for use in worship of God, dedicated to Him.


BTW, Israel is commanded to light the Shabbat candles, welcoming in the Sabbath, throughout the end of the ages.

 

[nathansgirl1908]

Well at this point, this is becoming a difference in how one worships and loves discussion. The way I or someone else worship and love God may be different from yours. So one can't really say if someone has a strained relationship with God because they have a *different* way of respecting and loving Him.

And one can't say that someone is worshipping a graven image just because they have a picture of Jesus in their home.

However, for people who treat graven images and set up *shrines* to praise/light candles/worship/bow down to said image is where I believe the Bible draws the line. At that point, that's treating Him like some common pagan idol, and we can at least agree that is disrespectful.

You are doing what is known as "drawing a legal conclusion." Since there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes a graven image, you should not definitively say that there are graven images.

Now, as I said before, I do believe (not 100% sure, but getting there) that God does look at the actions of each person and judges accordingly.

You're not sure? What is there to be unsure about with respect to this?

 

[azuquita_morena]

Last question: Well I say that because when it comes to interpretation of the Bible (and it's interpretation of a certain translation of the Bible at that), no one can say 100% that they know certain about this. I just many go off of what I read and a "feeling", and for most that is NOT enough to say 100% if that is going to happen. Basically my gut tells me that God is more merciful than people tend to portray so I believe that He will judge based on each person's situation. Whether that will happen or not, no one knows for sure, especially since everyone has a different view on this.

To respond to the first two statements, I treat things of this nature like most things that are of the religious/spiritual realm. Clearly, we are not all of the same faith, and every Bible (if translated different to fit that denomination's beliefs and practices) has a different view on this. We could each quote Bible verses to fit our particular beliefs all day long, but given what I stated in the previous statement, we all will have different answers to this topic. If you feel that the images don't in any way affect negatively your walk with God, then you should keep doing what you are doing. Just because I or someone else said said something contrary to that, doesn't mean that we are saying to Hell you go lol. As I stated, I don't like statements like that, nor agree with that. But if you feel it is right, then cool. I go by my feeling and it says no images of any sort of God, Jesus, angeles, etc. When I do view stuff like that, I get this very weird feeling (like I feel it's wrong) about it. So that's enough for me not to make one, see one, or worship to one.


Hopefully, as I continue my spiritual path, I will further understand the Scripture and be able to expound further on topics such as this. As a right now, though, I read that commandment to mean no graven image of any kind, neither of what is in the Heavens nor of what is below the Earth.

And one can't say that someone is worshipping a graven image just because they have a picture of Jesus in their home.


You are doing what is known as "drawing a legal conclusion." Since there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes a graven image, you should not definitively say that there are graven images.


You're not sure? What is there to be unsure about with respect to this?

 

[Prudent1]

JMHO
I chose not to. Mainly b/c I had issues with the very feminine looking traditional European depiction commonly used. Obviously I knew that was not what he looked like while here on earth. Of course, it was a part of the majority rule, white is right type thinking that is a part of the history of this country. In my personal walk God had to show me some ill feelings I harbored in my heart towards the majority at that point in my life. God used the lyrics to the song "The Blood" (the Kirk Franklin arrangement) to convict me and show me where I needed to let him fix some things. So, to the best of my knowledge and at this point in my journey, I do not need or desire any images crosses, ichthus, artist's interpretations of the Saviour, or otherwise to help me in my walk. Nor do I think having them automatically is grounds for eternal damnation. That's not to say God has not found ways to clearly/ cleverly convey to me the fact that he is very alert to my everyday life by the presence of tangible things that he and I understand the meaning/ value of. It's like other issues we differ on such as the correct day of the week for observing the sabbath, or observing the high holy days. The beautiful thing is that God knows each of our hearts. That is what he will look at and judge. It is possible for anything to become an idol or become out of balance. God however is not mocked or deceived. He knows how to and indeed will deal with each of us. Good discussions and points ladies.

 

[Mamita]

I am sorry but I don't understand the point you are making.

my point is that what you would have done for my grandfater which is pull an appearance out of thin air, that's what everyone has done for every icon. these bodies and physical appearances have never existed. and yet people pray in front of it, looking up at it, kneeling in front of it (cf the pics i posted). God is saying "i never walked the earth looking like that"...

i thought that was interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

The fact that this long haired blond blue eyed hippie came about around the 4th century when the catholic church boomed and imposed everything to the world, and not before, speaks volumes.

anything that changes with time and changes according to fashion and countries is not of God, cause God doesn't even have a shade of change, truth is immovable.

That makes every depiction of any biblical figure a lie, and we're not supposed to entertain lies

 

[Mahalialee4]

my point is that what you would have done for my grandfater which is pull an appearance out of thin air, that's what everyone has done for every icon. these bodies and physical appearances have never existed. and yet people pray in front of it, looking up at it, kneeling in front of it (cf the pics i posted). God is saying "i never walked the earth looking like that"...

i thought that was interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

The fact that this long haired blond blue eyed hippie came about around the 4th century when the catholic church boomed and imposed everything to the world, and not before, speaks volumes.

anything that changes with time and changes according to fashion and countries is not of God, cause God doesn't even have a shade of change, truth is immovable.

That makes every depiction of any biblical figure a lie, and we're not supposed to entertain lies

John 4:24 “God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.
Hebrew 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

2 Corinthians 4:18 “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen, are temporal; but the things which are not seen, are eternal.

2Corinthians 5:7 “…(For we walk by faith, not by sight…

Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Malachi 3:6 “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
James 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
1 John 1:5 “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.



Your Quote: >The fact that this long haired blond blue eyed hippie came about around the 4th century when the catholic church boomed and imposed everything to the world, and not before, speaks volumes. <

That was Cesare Borgia...will check the spelling, aslo the brother of evil Lucrezia Borgia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Borgia :
" Duke of Valentinois
Duke of Romagna
Prince of Andria and Venafro
Count of Dyois
Lord of Piombino, Camerino, and Urbino
Gonfalone of the Church
Captain General of the Church
Bishop of Pamplona
Cardinal of Valencia"....

"Like nearly all aspects of Cesare Borgia's life, the date of his birth is a subject of dispute. However, it is accepted that he was born in Rome either in 1475 or 1476 to Cardinal Rodrigo de Lanzol y Borja, soon to become Pope Alexander VI, and his mistress Vannozza de' Cattanei, of whom documents are sparse. The Borgia family originally came from Spain and rose to prominence during the mid 15th century, when Cesare's great uncle Alonso Borgia (1378–1458), bishop of Valencia, was elected Pope Callixtus III in 1455.[2] Cesare's father, Pope Alexander VI, was the first pope who was openly recognized to have children with a lover."

"Stefano Infessura writes that Cardinal Borgia falsely claimed Cesare to be the legitimate son of another man, the nominal husband of Vannozza de' Cattanei. More likely, Pope Alexander VI granted Cesare a release from the necessity of proving his birth in a papal bull."

"With brown eyes and black hair, Cesare was acknowledged as a beautiful child and grew to be a fleet-footed, tall, handsome man of unlimited ambition, much like his father..."

,,,"In Volume One of Celebrated Crimes, Alexandre Dumas, père states that SOME pictures of Jesus Christ produced around Borgia's lifetime WERE BASED ON CESARE BORGIAwere based on Cesare Borgia, and that this in turn has INFLUENCED IMAGES OF JESUS PRODUCED SINCE that time. Although, this does not mean that all pictures of Jesus Christ are influenced by Cesare Borgia, as the Deësis mosaic is much older than Cesare Borgia, and still looks similar to the image Jesus Christ is traditionally portrayed as...."

"Cesare Borgia briefly employed Leonardo da Vinci as military architect and engineer between 1502 and 1503. Cesare and Leonardo became intimate instantaneously — Cesare provided Leonardo with an unlimited pass to inspect and direct all planned and undergoing construction in his domain. Before meeting Cesare, Leonardo had worked at the Milanese court of Ludovico Sforza for many years, until Charles VIII of France drove Sforza out of Italy. After Cesare, Leonardo was unsuccessful in finding another patron in Italy. François I of France was able to convince him to enter his service, and the last three years of his life were spent working in France...."

"Cesare was also father to at least 11 illegitimate children, among them Girolamo Borgia, who married Isabella Contessa di Carpi, and Lucrezia Borgia, who, after Cesare's death, was moved to Ferrara to the court of her aunt, Lucrezia Borgia..."


(NOTE)...Cesare Borgia is mentioned in the song "B.I.B.L.E.", performed by Killah Priest, which appears on GZA's 1995 album Liquid Swords, as well as Killah Priest's debut album Heavy Mental. The relevant line is "the white image, of Christ, is really Cesare Borgia... the second son of Pope Alexander, the Sixth of Rome". A musical story of the reign of Cesare Borgia is also mentioned in a 2006 album namely "Enigma Borgia - Pecado Mortal".

"UNQUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Borgia

 

[Mahalialee4]

NOTE TO THE PROTESTANTS:
While you may believe that you are separate from the Catholic Church, TAKE NOTE:
Do You Known What Is Happening With YOUR LEADERS?

ElCapitanAmerica — April 20, 2008 — Pope Benedict XVI meets with various Chistian leaders at an Ecumenical service at St. Joseph's Church in NY.

Video shows the Pope personally greeted 15 of these leaders including the primate of the Greek Orthodox Church, the president of the National Council of Churches, and Elder from a Baptist denomination and also Bernice King daughter of the late Martin Luther King Jr.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion...

a PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS
Your leaders are meeting with the Pope and everyone is heading back to be one big happy family. More on this celebration at;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion...
Pope urges all Christians to 'hold fast' to scripture



By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — Pope Benedict XVI met with leaders of other Christian faiths on Friday evening, telling them that only by "holding fast" to sound doctrinal teaching can they confront secular ideology and the individualism that "undermines or even rejects transcendent truth."
More than 200 representatives of Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches met with the pope for an ecumenical prayer service at St. Joseph's Church, a small Roman Catholic parish settled by German immigrants in the Yorkville neighborhood of the upper East Side, where Mass is still said in German once a month.
WILLKOMMEN: German-American New Yorkers perked up by pope
Although each of these churches split from Roman Catholicism across centuries, the pope talked about their common birth and unity in belief in the Holy Trinity — God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — and their common concerns in a world where "the very possibility of divine revelation, and therefore of Christian faith, is often placed into question by cultural trends widely present in academia, the mass media and public debate.
"Christians are challenged to give a clear account of the hope that they hold," he said.
Benedict warned of the damage done when people give up on the fractured voices of Christianity and turn instead to beliefs that are not always based on scripture and tradition.
The pope also criticized Christian communities that bypass unified action "choosing instead to function according to the idea of "local options"' — a phrase often invoked by those who want to reform church teachings even if the wider church won't follow.
He warned against actions that are "not always consonant with ... Scripture and Tradition," and said that "only by holding fast to sound teaching will we be able to respond to the challenges that confront us in an evolving world."
HISTORIC VISIT: Benedict in Holocaust survivor's synagogue
In his audience in the whitewashed church sanctuary were leaders from the embattled Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of the Anglican church, which has lost 10% of its parishes to conservative groups that consider themselves the true expression of Anglicanism. The head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, was not present; she was meeting with church leaders in South Florida.
But New York Episcopal Bishop Mark Sisk, who was present, said he did not read the pope's remarks as a "shot across the bow" in the factionalism between conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians who supported the election of openly gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson in 2003. Many who supported Robinson's election called it a "prophetic" witness for justice and inclusion, even as traditionalists saw it as unbiblical and damaging to church unity.
Sisk said he thought that the pope's words were "respectful of our legitimate disagreement." He thought Benedict's speech was "rich and provocative, not contentious, but engaging."
Fisk said he understood the pope to say that "we can have different expressions of unity without division."
The president of the Southern Baptist Convention also was not at the gathering here, although there were Baptists represented in the audience. The Southern Baptist Convention, which shed any leanings toward liberalism in its membership in the 1980s, has doctrinal differences with Catholicism. Catholics and Southern Baptists held discussions about scripture and salvation between 1994 and 2001, but dialogue broke off when, a joint final statement acknowledged, there was "no hope of coming to any united conclusion."
Benedict said the power of the preaching of the Christian faith "has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies. …"
Secular worldviews, "in alleging that science alone is "objective," relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the "knowable" is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of 'personal experience.'
"For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living."
Recent surveys have found that non-denominational community churches are among the fastest growing churches in the USA, and that many Americans either don't know or disregard basic Christian doctines.
"Like the early Christians, we have a responsibility to give transparent witness to the 'reasons for our hope,' so that the eyes of all men and women of goodwill may be opened the pope said.
Participants at the service included 250 national and local Protestant and Orthodox Church leaders; the pope personally greeted fifteen leaders including the primate of the Greek Orthodox Church, Archbishop Demetrios of America, and the president of the National Council of Churches, Archbishop Vicken Aykazian of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern), and Bernice King, youngest child of Martin Luther King Jr. She is an elder at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia.
One of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' newest ecumenical efforts is the establishment of the Christian Churches Together, including Catholics, Orthodox, mainline Protestants, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, to address common social concerns.
Contributing: Religion News Service


SO WHAT IS THE PLAN?
Interesting plan.

 

[Mahalialee4]

INDICATIONS ARE: All Religious Leaders Are Currently and Will Be Joining Together Into One World Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keiU...C2510939&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=39

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIpmIrlo5U
recent document brings Catholic and Orthodox members closer to reconciliation.

November 16, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
The Vatican has drafted a joint document with Orthodox Church leaders declaring that the pope has primacy over all Catholic and Orthodox bishops. The agreement was reached by a joint international commission in Revenna, Italy, on October 13 and released by the Vatican on Thursday.

The document specifically declares that the pope held the highest position in the unified church before the Great Schism in 1054, and that the bishop of Rome was the protos, or first, among the patriarchs, including those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

That acknowledgment could pave the way for eventual reunification of the two churches—under the pope’s rule.
Cardinal Water Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, called discussions of the pope’s power in the early Catholic Church the “real breakthrough” of the document.

“This document is a modest first step and as such one of hope,” he told Vatican Radio. “But we must not exaggerate its importance. This will not be easy. The road is very long and difficult.”

The Orthodox Church split with Rome in 1054, largely because of disagreements over the authority of the pope. Its 220 million members fall under the authority of autonomous national churches, rather than a universal ruler, the way 1.1 billion Roman Catholics do.

Although the two sides agreed on the primacy of the pre-1054 pope, they still disagree on what his authority entailed in terms of the power he could exercise. The early popes had much less consolidated and centralized power than their second-millennium counterparts have wielded. This will make for thornier deliberations, particularly when the dogma of papal infallibility, which the Catholic Church developed after the split and formally defined in 1870, is discussed. However, in the interest of ecumenicism, the commission has called for the role of the pope to be studied in greater depth.

Pope Benedict xvi has called regaining the Orthodox Church a priority of his administration. In May last year, a senior Russian Orthodox official delivered a message from Patriarch Alexiy ii to Benedict, and Vatican officials said they were working toward a meeting between the two. The same month, 50 Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox officials held a meeting in Vienna.

In November last year, the pope met in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who is considered the spiritual head of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Benedict is literally making a career out of re-acquiring Catholicism’s daughter churches. However, no matter what is on the table for discussion, one dogma will remain the same: Everybody obeys the pope.


As a result of these ecumenical maneuverings—RESULTING IN ORTHODOX, ANGLICAN AND PROTESTANT DAUGHTERS BEING WELDED BACK INTO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH—look for papal authority not to weaken but to ultimately increase even further than it has already.


IT IS WHAT IT IS!

 

[Mahalialee4]

Russian Orthodox leader's funeral set for Tuesday
By JIM HEINTZ – 7 hours ago

MOSCOW (AP) — Patriarch Alexy II's funeral and burial will mirror the repression and revival of his religion, according to plans announced Saturday by the Russian Orthodox Church, with rites to be held in a cathedral rebuilt after Communists destroyed it and in the largest working church in Moscow to survive the Soviet era.

Alexy, who died Friday at age 79, led the church for 18 years, from the last year of the officially atheistic Soviet Union through a massive revival that saw it become the world's largest Orthodox church.

Alexy's body was to be taken Saturday to the huge Christ the Savior Cathedral for three days of public viewing and a Tuesday funeral. Burial is to be at Epiphany Cathedral, the patriarch's choice for interment.

When Alexy became head of the church in 1990, the 19th-century Epiphany Cathedral of sea-green towers topped by onion domes, was the patriarchal seat. The seat had been moved there after the closure of churches in the Kremlin and the destruction of larger cathedrals in Moscow, including the original Christ the Savior cathedral, That church was blown up in 1931 to make way for a planned Palace of Soviets that was never built.

Christ the Savior was reconstructed on the original site in the 1990s and became the patriarchal seat. Last year, it hosted the ceremony marking one of Alexy's proudest achievements — signing of a pact bringing the church and the schismatic Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia closer.

Alexy's death, however, left a long-running dispute with the Vatican unresolved.

He often complained that Roman Catholics were using post-Soviet Russia's new religious freedoms to poach adherents among a people who traditionally would have been Orthodox if atheistic Soviet rule had not impeded them.

Yet he and the church held many discussions with the Vatican, aiming to reach an agreement that would allow the church to accept a papal visit to Russia.

Without Alexy at the helm, the church's initiatives on that question may go dormant for several months. The church's Holy Synod chose Metropolitan Kirill, the church's foreign relations chief who has had extensive contact with the Vatican, as interim leader, Russian news agencies reported. But the church says the election of a permanent head may not take place for six months.

The Moscow Patriarchate said Alexy died at his residence outside Moscow, but did not give a cause of death. Alexy had long suffered from a heart ailment, although on Thursday he had appeared comparatively well while conducting services.

Alexy became leader of the church as the Soviet Union was loosening its restrictions on religion. After the Soviet Union collapsed the following year, the church's popularity surged. Church domes that had been stripped of their gold under the Soviets were regilded, churches that had been converted into warehouses or left to rot in neglect were painstakingly restored, and hours-long services on major religious holidays were broadcast live on national television.

Despite the Vatican-Moscow dispute, Pope Benedict XVI praised Alexy on Friday.

"I am pleased to recall the efforts of the late patriarch for the rebirth of the church after the severe ideological oppression which led to the martyrdom of so many witnesses to the Christian faith. I also recall his courageous battle for the defense of human and Gospel values," the pope said in a message of condolence to the Russian church."

 

[Mahalialee4]

Posted by: Chris Baldwin
May 30th, 2008


With some news events, not much happens but the atmosphere is so striking that it’s worth mentioning all the same. That was the case in Moscow this week as Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, met Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexiy II.

Though this was an unofficial visit, the patriarch and the cardinal both took care to use language noticeable for its friendly, accommodating and even warm tone in their greetings - a continuation of what is seen as a “thaw” and “emerging cooperation” between the two churches.

“I am convinced of the necessity in an Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, based on the coincidence of our positions on many of the issues facing the Christian world today,” Alexiy told Kasper. “I believe (your) interest in the life and traditions of the (Orthodox) Church will turn out to be important between our two Churches.”

For his part, Kasper returned the greeting in kind: “We have met more than once now, but each time I meet with you I do so with great happiness. And I hope this meeting will enable further development in our relations, contacts and cooperation.”

He also brought a personal message from Pope Benedict who praised the “growing closeness between us, accompanied by the shared desire to promote authentic Christian values and to witness to our Lord in ever deeper communion.”

In private the two men discussed issues of religious education at Catholic orphanages for those baptised Russian Orthodox and the spread of the Uniate faith in western Ukraine, an area seen by Moscow as within Russian Orthodoxy’s canonical territory.

The elephant in the room, which the two men did not discuss in front of reporters, was whether the formerly frosty relations between the two churches had thawed enough to facilitate a future meeting between Alexiy and Benedict, something the Pope is actively seeking. Only last October, the Russians walked out of a theological dialogue meeting with the Catholic Church in Ravenna, Italy in protest over a doctrinal issue.

“Nothing concrete was said about this, but there was a confirmation on principle that a meeting is possible,” a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church told reporters after the meeting. “But, as His Holiness the Patriarch said, this kind of meeting has to be well planned so that it isn’t just a photo-opportunity.”

While in Russia, Kasper also toured Orthodox dioceses in Nizhny Novgorod, Smolensk and Kazan to pray at icons there before stopping in Moscow, a gesture seen as a welcome sign of respect for the Russian church."

 

[Mahalialee4]

http://www.catholicfemina.com/2009/10/traditional-anglicans-return-to-one.html

IT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED IN MANY CASES:

"Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Traditional- Anglicans Return to the "One" Fold


The prayers of millions have been answered and Christian history has been made on October 20, 2009. 'May They Be One!' In an absolutely stunning announcement on the morning of October 20, the Holy See has, by Apostolic Constitution, provided the canonical vehicle for Anglican Christians to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church. Catholic
Catholic Femina Speaks: What Next? The Anglicans are allowed to return, will this be a new rite? How will the rest of the church react, is this to be like the retelling of the prodigal son... Personally I am over 10 miles away from the nearest Catholic Church, but there is an Anglican church less than a mile away. I am interested to see if they will be offering a valid mass that I can attend. Now, just because the Anglicans have been allowed to return doesn't mean that they all will... if you want to attend an Anglican church to hear a valid mass you must first ask the pastor if this church is in full communion with the Pope in Rome. "Deciding" or "in the process of returning" do not count as a valid mass and do not fulfill your Sunday obligation. The Anglican have always carried in their tradition the "Cup of Christ's traditions." Now unlike other protestant churches who do not accept the truth and have their cup half-empty; the Anglicans who wish to have their cup filled may do so. Praise God: "we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead, and is alive again; was lost and now is found!" Luke 15:32
Posted by Catholic Femina at 10:21 AM
Labels: Anglican Return, Catholic Family, Catholic Youth, Tradition, USCCB, Vatican, World News "

 

[Mahalialee4]

EVANGELICALS"

http://www.leaderu.com/ect/ectmenu.html

"Telling the Truth at the speed of life. (June 2, 2010)


Evangelicals and Catholics Together
The following is information relates to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document.

Evangelicals And Catholics Together: The Christian Mission In The Third Millennium [April 1994]
The original ECT document, as reported in First Things Journal. This statement is the product of consultation, beginning in September 1992, between Evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians. Appended to the text is a list of participants in the consultation and of others who have given their support to this declaration.

Why I Decided To Become A Signatory on the Document [December 1994]
Evangelicals And Catholics Together: The Christian Mission In The Third Millennium, by Dr. Bill Bright, Founder and President of Campus Crusade for Christ International

Statement By Protestant Signers To ECT [January 1995]
We Protestants who signed ECT, took this action to advance Christian fellowship, cooperation, and mutual trust among true Christians in the North American cultural crisis and in the worldwide task of evangelism. The same concern leads us now to elucidate our ECT commitment.

Letter from Dr. Bill Bright announcing that key protestant leaders have met and reconciled [February 1995]
Dr. Bright's letter updates the ECT status with the story of a wonderful breakthrough and act of healing and understanding. Key Christian leaders who had been indisagreement over the 1994 ECT statement have been reconciled by our gracious Lord.

NEWS: Evangelicals Clarify Accord with Catholics [March 1995]
Some present called the meeting "historic." Others say it was at least highly significant. Whatever the case, a January 19 gathering of top evangelical leaders has averted what Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson worried might become a "serious rift" over the controversial statement Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT).

Catholic-Evangelical signers address areas of controversy [March 1995]
Three Southern Baptists who signed the controversial document Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) have endorsed a statement intended to"resolve misunderstanding and be more explicit."

Clarifying Statement by ECT Signatories [October 1997]
In the spring of 1994, a distinguished group of Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants issued a much-discussed statement, Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. That statement, commonly referred to as ECT, noted a growing "convergence and cooperation" between Evangelicals and Catholics in many public tasks, and affirmed agreement in basic articles of Christian faith while also underscoring the continuing existence of important differences. At a meeting in the fall of 1996, it was determined that further progress depended upon firm agreement on the meaning of salvation, and especially the doctrine of justification. After much discussion, study, and prayer over the course of a year, a statement was agreed to at a meeting in New York City, October 6-7, 1997. In future conversations they intend to address the outstanding questions noted at the end of this statement. "


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Mahalialee4]

BAPTISTS, EPISCOPALIANS.......


http://www.baptistcatholic.com/
Baptist vs. Roman Catholic Beliefs
The term "Baptist" refers to a person who believes in the adult "baptism of believers" in Jesus. In other words, Baptists are those who claim a personal faith in Christ alone for salvation, who also reject the baptism of infants, believing that only adult believers in Jesus, (or those at least old enough to actually understand about trusting in Christ), should be baptized. They also do not believe that baptism itself saves them from their sins.
The term "Catholic" means "Universal". It generally refers to the "Roman Catholic Church", which for most of these last two thousand years has been the largest and most organized religious group "within" Christendom.
During the later part of the Middle Ages, some people who were studying the Bible became convinced that infant baptism, (i.e. the sprinkling of babies with water by a priest), was unscriptural. As a result, these men began to "re-baptize" each other. The word "Ana-Baptist" ("Anabaptist") means "re-baptizer". These people were called "re"-baptizers by Roman Catholics and Protestants, (because most of these Baptists had already been "sprinkled" by the Roman Catholic Church when they were infants.)
There were millions of such Anabaptists and other early Baptists between the end of the Middle Ages and the early Reformation period.
The Anabaptists (Baptists), based their insistence on the baptism of non-infants who believed on Jesus Christ alone for salvation on three primary arguments:
(1) The Bible does not mention any babies or small children being baptized. (There is no record of infants being baptized in the Bible.)
(2) The word for "baptize" in the original Greek means "to immerse" in water.
(3) The Bible says that those who believe may be baptized. Since infants cannot understand, and therefore cannot believe on Jesus Christ, baptism must then be for adults, or at least for those old enough to understand. It must not be for infants. Also, Baptists believe that baptism plays no part in salvation itself.
During this period of time, the act of infant baptism was widely practiced throughout Europe. In some places, infant baptism was practically considered to be a part of the rite of citizenship, (almost like a birth certificate is today). Therefore, those rejecting infant baptism were often accused of disloyalty or rebellion against civil government.
These Baptists were also often hated and persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church -- which by this time strongly promoted the practice of infant baptism. (The Roman Catholic Church had originally practiced the immersion of adults, but by this time in history, the sprinkling of adults and then of infants had become its main practice.) Therefore, a rejection by Baptists of infant baptism was often considered to be an attack or subversion against the Roman Catholic Church itself. For this reason, many Popes, and those under them, ordered the persecution of these "rebellious" Baptists.
Another reason for the persecution of Baptists was their insistence on "believers only" baptism, which was seen as an attack on the "salvation by works" theology widely taught by the Roman Catholic Church. During this period of time, millions of Baptists and others had their property confiscated and many of them were tortured. Millions of Baptists were killed under direct or indirect influence of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Reformation brought three main groups of Protestants into existence: These were the "Calvinists", founded by John Calvin in Northern Europe; the "Anglicans", (or "Church of England"); and the "Lutherans", (founded in Germany by the former monk, Martin Luther). These three, together with a few other smaller groups, comprised the Protestants.
The Protestants for the most part continued the Roman Catholic medieval practice of infant baptism. Because Baptists rejected such infant baptism, the Baptists were never really considered to be Protestants in the general sense. Also, because of this rejection of infant baptism, Baptists were often persecuted by both Protestants and Roman Catholics alike.
Many Roman Catholic beliefs are different from Baptist beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of "salvation by works" -- that one is saved through the use of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, (such as through infant baptism, the "Mass", Communion, etc.). Catholics believe that by taking or participating in these sacraments, salvation is "infused" into a person through these works. (Infusion is what happens when a tea bag comes in contact with boiled water. The tea in the teabag infuses into the water, changing the plain hot water into a hot cup of "tea".) Baptists, however, believe in salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ, apart from works.
The Roman Catholic Church emphasizes the "Mass", which is seen as an act re-sacrificing the actual body and blood of Christ by a priest. Because Baptists believe that Christ is up in Heaven, (and not down on a Communion table), they therefore consider the Mass to be blasphemous. Further, Baptists believe that Christ died only once, and that this one death by Christ was sufficient to pay for all of the sins of all mankind throughout all history.
Catholics also believe in "Purgatory", a place where men and woman go to be temporarily "purged" by fire for their sins. Baptists teach that the Bible knows nothing of Purgatory. Baptists believe rather that after death, there are only two places where people go: Heaven and Hell. (In other words, there is not a third option being this place that Roman Catholics call Purgatory).
Catholics believe in a Universal (Catholic) Church, which they say was set in place by the Apostle Peter, whom they call the first "Pope" - guardian of the keys to the Gates of Heaven and Hell. Baptists believe in the autonomy and authority of the Local church, that each individual Baptist church is independent from all other human authority and also from all other churches as well.
Catholics believe in offering prayers to Mary and to the Saints. Baptists believe that prayer should only be made to God in the name of Christ:
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
Catholics believe in the authority of the Roman Catholic Bible as well as the authority of the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Pope. Baptists believe in the authority of the Bible plus faith plus nothing - that the Bible alone is a sufficient basis for all faith and practice.
Catholics believe in the mediation of Roman Catholic priests. Baptists believe that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that one mediator is "the man Christ Jesus". (I Timothy 2:5)
Catholics believe in the practice of worshipping icons in the Church. Baptists believe that all such religious icons are idolatrous, and therefore reject their use, both as decorations and as objects of worship. For this reason, Baptist churches generally lack the statues and paintings of saints commonly found in most Roman Catholic churches. Baptist churches tend to be decorated more simply and much less ornately as a result of the views that Baptists hold against ‘ICONS’.”…
There are many other differences between Catholics and Baptists. Nevertheless, despite these differences, there are many New Evangelicals, such as Billy Graham, the late Jerry Falwell, and Rick Warren who have encouraged a spirit of cooperation between Catholics and Baptists. Nevertheless, throughout their history, Baptists have always taught the doctrine of "Biblical Separation" from the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, such Bapticatholics as Billy Graham, Rick Warren and other such New Evangelicals have departed from this historic Baptist doctrine and are now teaching a new doctrine associated with The Ecumenical Movement”…

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2009/09/episcopal_nuns_join_catholic_c.html


EPISCOPALEANS ...DEVELOPMENTS
SEPTEMBER 4, 2009
Episcopal nuns join Catholic Church
Churches and whole dioceses have left the Episcopal Church since the 2003 consecretation of an openly gay bishop brought a lonstanding divide over homosexuality within the nation's sixth-largest Protestant denomination out into the open.
But on Thursday, 10 Episcopal nuns from a Catonsville convent took what scholars say is the unprecedented step of joining the Catholic Church. At a Mass celebrated by Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, each vowed to continue their tradition of consecrated life, now as a religious institute within the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
"We know our beliefs and where we are," Mother Christina Christie, superior of All Saints Sisters of the Poor, told sun colleague Mary Gail Hare. "We were drifting farther apart from the more liberal road the Episcopal Church is traveling. We are now more at home in the Roman Catholic Church."
In a statement, Bishop Eugene Taylor Sutton of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland wished them God's blessings.
"Despite the sadness we feel in having to say farewell, our mutual joy is that we remain as one spiritual family of faith, one body in Christ," he said.
Read the story at baltimoresun.com. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2009/09/episcopal_nuns_join_catholic_c.html

 

[Mamita]

hey Mahalialee4 you should start your own thread with all the articles cause that's pretty much hijacking this thread lol most of it is off topic lool

and that's way too much to read in just one thread lol

the scriptures u used though were all on point, thank you for bringing them back to my mind.

 

[Mahalialee4]

Some Have Tried to Pin Point What Catholics Believe and Why Catholics are Sensitive to Investigation And Came To This Conclusion:
random331 — November 12, 2007 — What do Catholics Really Believe?? By Dr Peter Ruckman Église Catholique Katholische Kirche Καθολική εκκλησία... random331 — November 12, 2007 — What do Catholics Really Believe??
By Dr Peter Ruckman

"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kGQFVZGXBI&feature=related " unquote

This is very enlightening.

CATHOLIC BIBLES VERSUS PROTESTANT BIBLES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvXbotd9Lw

So now you have it in a nutshell: 'RELIGION'

It is what it is.

 

[Guitarhero]

The term "Catholic" means "Universal". It generally refers to the "Roman Catholic Church", which for most of these last two thousand years has been the largest and most organized religious group "within" Christendom.l

I think the best way to learn about someone is to reading their documents, not third-party agendicized. Is that a word? LOL. Catholics are NOT SENSITIVE TO INVESTIGATION. Investigate me all day long. I will not change partaking of Christ through the Eucharist. He's there for me. Negativities against any denomination can be spit out, regurgitated millions of times and at the end of the day, we merrily go about attending Mass despite someone's disdain. It doesn't detract nor impede in the least. We are fine. Catholics do not worship icons, they are not recrucifying Christ - although, when we sin, we actually do - but they are doing what Jesus told them to do. It is called the eucharist and is the sacrifice of the Mass. It's perpetual. Doesn't mean it starts and stops.

Before there were Roman Catholics, that sacrifice was in place, on the altar, bread and wine changing into the body of Christ. "Universal" doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church, it refers to the one Church that Jesus established with the sacrifice of the Mass, the eucharist. The precedence was the sacrifice in the Temple. Jesus fulfilled that in HIs Body. As for the universal faith, meaning the way that Jesus brought, Coptics belong to it, Maronites, Melkites, Syriacs, Chaldeans, Romans, East Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox etc. and even protestants belong to it in certain ways. This is christian heritage and we all come from it. People change, but the first church which evolved organizationally into what we have now all hails from it. It wasn't Roman, it wasn't Orthodox, it was Jewish and it became divided into the Eastern and Western seats. Much like the protestant Reformation, men muck up things due to pride and politricks. But the eucharist is not disputed by those who abide in the first church. But we don't condemn you or yours.

The topic is if we should have images of Jesus/God. Obviously, since most protestants do not have icons, it falls naturally "against" the ancient (what I call us) christians who do. This is how the discussion turned because it was established that some do so and it was explained why. That's not running from "investigation," that's openness to explain why. Icons were used long before "Roman Catholic" became a term. But of course, if one had access to documents and history from those religions they are bashing, they'd know this already. First the "Jews" and now the catholics. I agree with the other poster that maybe another topic should be started. You can call it, "how catholics are pagans doomed to hell." I'll be your first poster to fess up since I'm one. I mean this in agape (midst sarcasm). I don't believe the policy of the Christian Forum is to win converts and that's what it appears you are doing. We can discuss the whys but when we start with demeaning others out of ignorance and crying deception, we are proselytizing. I believe that is against the rules. If scriptures are given for any opinion, it can't be disputed just because one doesn't comprehend it. That goes for every topic. We can take sides but demeaning is hitting below the best and my balls are getting bruised.

There are COGIC, Baptists, Presbyterians etc. on here and none of them are attempting to win converts through forceful and slightly veiled negative indictments. Anyone can believe what they want. Just live and let live. I do not care if you become catholic or coptic or whatever and I think you shouldn't care if I never ever (on my parents' graves) become a protestant. This world is big enough for every religion practiced or not practiced on it. Obviously, you are where God placed you to be. Same here. Nobody on this list can save my soul.

 

[Mahalialee4]

Natchitoches
I am keeping in mind that this is THE CHRISTIAN FORUM. That the Subject was: “SHOULD CHRISTIANS HAVE IMAGES OF JESUS/GOD/BIBLICAL?
Based on what someone’s belief system is, is where people always take their stand. The question and the controversy about ‘images’ used in worship, boil down to one bottom line. What is your religious perspective? This includes who believes the Bible, their religious persuasion, or no particular persuasion at all or who doesn’t believe in the Bible or what they believe about it. The predominant posters fall into either one category or another, i.e. Catholic or Protestant, both claiming belief in Scripture.

Discussing ‘images and worship’ without appreciating the USE of them in HISTORY, in THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION and the world and NON BELIEVERS in general and Scripture, will always end up being an ‘I think, I feel, you and we’ debate.’ But, it is still really, ‘A RELIGIOUS DEBATE’. Now when a question is asked on the ‘use of images for worship ‘, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS SUBJECT MATTER, in the Christian Forum, and it obviously affects ‘professing Christians’ and what they ‘believe or do not believe.’ I assume I can answer just like anyone else. When I post relevant information, about the DOCTRINES and different belief systems within Christianity and how they are viewed or change , do not make it all about ‘you’ and your ‘personal feelings’ and have ‘a knee jerk reaction’. It is GENERAL DOCUMENTED information, whether it is about Jews, Christians, Protestants, or what ever. Everyone has a choice whether or not to check the link to a video or a document. If a document is posted, the same choice is there.

Again, it is not all about you or attacking you or your religion. I find that you have even taken issue with most Scriptures I post, in a variety of threads I have contributed to, or even begun. Particularly in the ‘OFF TOPIC’ FORUM, where Catholics or Protestants were not being discussed. The Topic briefly related to the irony of racism against black people and yet Europeans were using ‘black images’, and then within the same thread (which I started) which related to America backing Israel, Churches backing Israel and discussing ‘who really is a Biblical Jew according to Scripture, and the relevancy of this to the State of Israel, and what is happening there in the light of current world events.’ The information was well researched with Scriptures and documentation, but I was informed by you, that “I had no right to be discussing Jews because it was ‘anti-semitic’. “ " Asked "What did this have to do with me?" ...You further stated in more than one post in a thread not addressed to you, in regard to Scriptures I posted, that “those Scriptures are a mute point” and went to great length to single my posts out to engage, to debate, saying that “just posting the Scriptures was not helpful”, they 'needed to be explained'…etc. and flooded every response with a question , but ignored requests for information on what you denounced. Documentation quoted from a VARIETY of Prominent Jewish sources ( Rabbis, Scientists, MP's, Doctors, followers of the Jewish Religion, etc. News Broadcasts, Governments officials, Jewish Authors, etc) ...was 'irrelevant" and biased”, according to you. That was in the “OFF TOPIC FORUM!

According to your reactions, it is ‘off limits’ for me to ‘post Scriptures' anywhere, that you do not personally agree with, or do not line up with what you have been taught so 'posting' them is 'biased' on my part, and the 'Scriptures' are 'irrelevant'!; Now, posting 'information', documentation, on anything ‘religious’….(Jews, Israel,Christians, Catholics and Protestants etc.), within the context of the subject matter, without your approval of subject and the content, is a personal attack on you. Stop playing the 'persecution card' when I post a Scripture without comment. If I make a general comment, it is not about you, either . This calling attention to yourself, 'claiming you are being beaten with the Bible' etc. because I post a lot of Scriptures is, frankly, getting OLD. On a Christian Forum, what should I be quoting, or posting from?... the 'Koran'? Buddhism, Confuscius? or New Age?...Are the Bible Scriptures 'offensive' in a Christian forum? In that case you could 'assume I was proselytizing' if I was NOT quoting from what "Christians' claim is their ROOT of 'authority' and 'belief', and DOCTRINES and what their religions are based on.

To my knowledge it is not 'against the rules' to post 'Scriptures'. Does that make me ‘ Anti-Bible’ when I post Scriptures?

We will all lose our freedom of speech & freedom of choice of religion soon enough. I have ‘no religion’ that I belong to so I would not be looking for any ‘proselytes’ to join it. I do however believe deeply in the Scriptures I posted, which you called ‘irrelevant, ‘mute’, ‘biased’, ‘didn’t make any sense’, ‘had nothing to do with’ ‘ did not prove anything’, ‘don’t know why you posted that Scripture', that 'link'. etc. You continuously made it about ‘proving something to YOU, ’ censoring, to ‘meet some standard that you were trying 'to impose' on me.” I AM NOT YOUR LITTLE CHILD. So find someone else to follow around the boards and try to 'censure', 'bully' and 'attempt' to provoke. That is what you are doing!

When the FORUM rules are changed to state "that no Scriptures can be quoted, no links to videos, news releases, or historical references can be posted, to clarify anything or provide research information, that might personally 'offend' " (YOU), or that (YOU) 'do not approve', then we will go by those rules.
In the future do not ‘single out’ my personal posts, on any of the forums, looking to nit pick, harass, or try to provoke an argument, for reasons known best to you. That is not very Christian. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in spite of your doing this repeatedly IN DIFFERENT THREAD POSTS, AND HERE, AND IN OTHER (OFF TOPIC) FORUM.

TOTALLY DONE.

 

[Mahalialee4]

To the general: This is my bottom line: It is very relevant. It is my WHOLE POINT.

The Time is coming:
Whether Catholics use images or icons and Protestants do not will be IRRELEVANT to many:

In the end, whether individuals agree or disagree on this or any point of Doctrines, or whether or not their Bibles are the same or different, it is NOT GOING TO MATTER, unless you PERSONALLY, understand WHERE or WHY you are standing when it comes to Christ and Scripture REGARDLESS of ‘RELIGION’. Religion has been changing and circumstances will change drastically for everyone.

Right now, it is only assumed by many Protestant “Christians’ that there is this vast religious difference or religious divide between them and Catholics. The leaders of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches for THE MOST PART are meeting together and joining together. The ‘religious stand ‘that Protestant leaders held before, for the MOST PART, they no longer take. Some will be celebrating ‘joint masses’. Your beliefs and doctrines that mattered before, and over which much blood of the saints was shed, will suddenly be viewed as ‘non-issues’ by leaders of most 'denominational' churches. They will form ONE UNION.

This means that the Holy Scriptures that you believe you and your 'church', STAND FIRMLY ON, regarding any matter, or practice, or any doctrine, may become 'a mute point', no longer 'relevant' within many of the Churches, regardless of their "Statements of Faith". Every believer is going to be impacted by this reality, because things are no longer where you thought they were and you are going to be faced with this REALITY on A PERSONAL LEVEL. It will be a real TEST OF YOUR FAITH. Knowing where you stand, what you really believe and why, who and what your faith 'is based on' cannot be 'avoided'. The Scriptures WILL BE YOUR TESTING GROUND and it will make or break you.

So take the information, read it or leave it. It will not change THE REALITY of what is coming. But KNOWING or NOT KNOWING what is involved will make a difference.

 

[Guitarhero]

Natchitoches
I am keeping in mind that this is THE CHRISTIAN FORUM. That the Subject was: “SHOULD CHRISTIANS HAVE IMAGES OF JESUS/GOD/BIBLICAL?
Based on what someone’s belief system is, is where people always take their stand. The question and the controversy about ‘images’ used in worship, boil down to one bottom line. What is your religious perspective? This includes who believes the Bible, their religious persuasion, or no particular persuasion at all or who doesn’t believe in the Bible or what they believe about it. The predominant posters fall into either one category or another, i.e. Catholic or Protestant, both claiming belief in Scripture.

Discussing ‘images and worship’ without appreciating the USE of them in HISTORY, in THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION and the world and NON BELIEVERS in general and Scripture, will always end up being an ‘I think, I feel, you and we’ debate.’ But, it is still really, ‘A RELIGIOUS DEBATE’. Now when a question is asked on the ‘use of images for worship ‘, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS SUBJECT MATTER, in the Christian Forum, and it obviously affects ‘professing Christians’ and what they ‘believe or do not believe.’ I assume I can answer just like anyone else. When I post relevant information, about the DOCTRINES and different belief systems within Christianity and how they are viewed or change , do not make it all about ‘you’ and your ‘personal feelings’ and have ‘a knee jerk reaction’. It is GENERAL DOCUMENTED information, whether it is about Jews, Christians, Protestants, or what ever. Everyone has a choice whether or not to check the link to a video or a document. If a document is posted, the same choice is there.

Again, it is not all about you or attacking you or your religion. I find that you have even taken issue with most Scriptures I post, in a variety of threads I have contributed to, or even begun. Particularly in the ‘OFF TOPIC’ FORUM, where Catholics or Protestants were not being discussed. The Topic briefly related to the irony of racism against black people and yet Europeans were using ‘black images’, and then within the same thread (which I started) which related to America backing Israel, Churches backing Israel and discussing ‘who really is a Biblical Jew according to Scripture, and the relevancy of this to the State of Israel, and what is happening there in the light of current world events.’ The information was well researched with Scriptures and documentation, but I was informed by you, that “I had no right to be discussing Jews because it was ‘anti-semitic’. “ " Asked "what did this have to do with me?"...You further stated that “those Scriptures are a mute point” and went to great length to debate, saying that “just posting the Scriptures was not helpful”, they needed to be explained…etc. Documentation quoted from a variety of Jewish sources was ‘irrelevant and biased”. This was the “off topic forum. According to your reactions, it is ‘off limits’ for me to ‘post Scriptures that you do not personally agree with, or do not line up with what you have been taught so posting them is biased on my part; Now, posting information on anything ‘religious’….(Jews, Israel,Christians, Catholics and Protestants etc. within the context of the subject matter, without your approval of subject and the content, is a personal attack on you. Stop playing the 'persecution card' when I post a Scripture without comment. If I make a general comment, it is not about you. This calling attention to yourself, 'claiming you are being beaten with the Bible' etc. is getting OLD. On a Christian Forum, what should I be quoting, the 'Koran'? Confuscius? or New Age?...Is the Scriptures offensive in a Christian forum?

To my knowledge is it not against the rules to post Scriptures. Does that make me ‘ anti-Bible’ to post Scriptures?
We will all lose our freedom of speech soon enough. I have ‘no religion’ that I belong to so I would not be looking for any ‘proselytes’ to join it. I do however believe deeply in the Scriptures I posted, which you called ‘irrelevant, ‘mute’, ‘biased’, ‘didn’t make any sense’, ‘had nothing to do with’ ‘ did not prove anything’, ‘don’t know why you posted that Scripture, that link. etc. You continuously made it about ‘proving something to YOU, ’ or ‘meeting some standard that you were trying to impose on me.” I AM NOT YOUR LITTLE CHILD. So find someone else to follow around the boards and try to bully and attempt to provoke. That is what you are doing!

When the FORUM rules are changed to state that no Scriptures can be quoted, no links to videos, new releases, or references can be posted, to clarify anything or provide research information, that might personally offend YOU, or that YOU do not approve, then we will go by those rules.
In the future do not ‘single out’ my personal posts, on any of the forums, looking to nit pick, harass, or try to provoke an argument, for reasons known best to you. That is not very Christian. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in spite of your doing this repeatedly IN DIFFERENT POSTS AND HERE AND IN OTHER (OFF TOPIC) FORUM.

TOTALLY DONE.

On second thought, MahaliaLee, you are absolutely correct in all you say and copy and paste. It's all yours, even in the "hate a White Jew" thread.

 

[Mahalialee4]

hey Mahalialee4 you should start your own thread with all the articles cause that's pretty much hijacking this thread lol most of it is off topic lool

and that's way too much to read in just one thread lol

the scriptures u used though were all on point, thank you for bringing them back to my mind.

I assumed it was about using 'images in worship', and whether it was Biblical or not...a religious question, obviously relevant to the religion of Catholics and Protestants. Then I assumed that answering it in that vein would be relevant, using Scriptures and Documentation from Catholics and Church scholars and news updates.
The coming changes are going to affect you, once again.

Yes. It was a lot of information. Do not read anymore than you care to. Remember I am a researcher. It's in my blood. (smile)

To avoid any sensitive 'issues'...I wonder if it will get to the point where certain "QUESTIONS' will be 'censored', not allowed to be asked at all.... That will certainly eliminate 'some answers'. "or a request for 'censoring' the Scriptures we post to determine which ones we are allowed to post to avoid 'offense'. (Not talking of making a comment with them ...just Contro copy-posting the Scripture direct) I trust it will not get to that point. Would sure be a shame.

 

[Crown]

The issue is : it's just TOO MUCH!!!

I understand your point of view (I don't agree with all).
And you are trying your best to warn us (readers) : lady, you are on fire about what YOU believe .

But it's just a forum.

It's not a class / course.
What's the point to post so much information if this discourages reading and discourages the discussion about the thread?

 

[Mahalialee4]

I shared what I needed to. Left it up to the readers to read what they wanted to. One thing. I will not ever have to look back and regret not speaking out to the very heart of the matter when I had an opportunity and having that on my conscience.

Yes. You are right. It can definitely be considered a warning. Whether received or not, I gave it. My assignment is done on this.

 

[Galadriel]

I believe icons (religious images/depictions of Jesus, the Saints, Angels) are a wonderful part of Christian history and art, and Christian spirituality as well. The purpose of icons is to assist the direction of your thoughts and meditations. Just think, if negative images (say, like pornography) can get trapped in our heads and affect us, why not put positive and holy images in our heads?

I have seen icons from different parts of the world, and some of them have very interesting stories behind them (one of my favorite is the Black Madonna ).

This is a short, simplistic explanation, but just wanted to offer my perspective on it.

Today at my church, the pastor spoke about how when he was a child, he envisioned God to look at an aged old man with a white beard, long hair, sandals, and of a fair complexion. Basically, he formed God in his own image.
He also touched on how Jews and Muslims do not believe in having images and how this correlates with their staunch monotheism.

I feel like we should not have images of God, for since God is Spirit, He does not have flesh or bones or "figure." God is not human. I also feel like images of Jesus have distracted many Christians. With racial tensions being ever so present in society, some are too busy challenging the way Christ looked like when He was on Earth. One can even look at the recent documentary on revealing what Jesus may have appeared like.

What's your take? Obviously people may say as long as you do not view a picture of Jesus as an idol, it's fine, but I cannot believe that those same people may have those images when they pray/think about God.

 

[Crown]

For ME, no image, icon, statue…

LORD commanded to represent His tabernacle :
(Ex. 25.9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. )

He gave intelligence to specific men to view things and realize the work :
(Ex. 31.2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 31.3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 31.4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, 31.5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship. 31.6 And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee; ).

Otherwise, I believe this :
Heb. 10.38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
[FONT=&quot]Jn. 4.24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.[/FONT]

 

[Crown]

However, the Christ came in flesh. I can not say it is a sin to represent the real Him if we had it. But we don’t have His portrait and representing Him can be a distraction. Representations of Christ are not His portrait, those are portraits of someone else and in some case some very evil person : not the truth at all.

If the LORD wanted to leave His portrait, we would have it.

The Bible says :
Is. 53.2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

I understand this verse as don’t be distracted by the appearance of the messenger but concentrate and live by His message.

 

[nathansgirl1908]

The issue is : it's just TOO MUCH!!!

I understand your point of view (I don't agree with all).
And you are trying your best to warn us (readers) : lady, you are on fire about what YOU believe .

But it's just a forum.

It's not a class / course.
What's the point to post so much information if this discourages reading and discourages the discussion about the thread?

I thought I was the only one who felt that way.

Just way too much stuff to read.
In my opinion, it really isn't that serious to create posts of that length. The point gets lost through all the extra.

 

[Laela]

@the bolded, ITA. It's that simple.

If God gives you the unction, so be it. This thread is definitely being read and you never know who is benefiting from your posts and the information you've taken your time to provide.

God bless

I shared what I needed to. Left it up to the readers to read what they wanted to. One thing. I will not ever have to look back and regret not speaking out to the very heart of the matter when I had an opportunity and having that on my conscience.

Yes. You are right. It can definitely be considered a warning. Whether received or not, I gave it. My assignment is done on this.

 

[Crown]

I shared what I needed to. Left it up to the readers to read what they wanted to. One thing. I will not ever have to look back and regret not speaking out to the very heart of the matter when I had an opportunity and having that on my conscience.

Yes. You are right. It can definitely be considered a warning. Whether received or not, I gave it. My assignment is done on this.

We can agree to disagree.
I think we all want to help each others in their walk, not just post what I need.

I know it's not a class, but there is a course named : I teach but are they listening?
It's not just about an assignment to be done, it's about edification.

[FONT=&quot]We can use suggestion from others to improve our attitude as a witness (also available for my person).[/FONT]

 

[huxtable]

I shared what I needed to. Left it up to the readers to read what they wanted to. One thing. I will not ever have to look back and regret not speaking out to the very heart of the matter when I had an opportunity and having that on my conscience.

Yes. You are right. It can definitely be considered a warning. Whether received or not, I gave it. My assignment is done on this.

Mahalialee

A thousand times thanks for all that you have posted, I like the way you break things down. Please do not be discouraged, continue the good work.

God bless you in Jesus name.