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



## SND411 (May 30, 2010)

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.


----------



## Sharpened (May 30, 2010)

> *Exodus 20:4 *You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


If He had changed His mind on this, someone had better show me. I tend to keep my walk on the narrow path simple and clear. Unfortunately, DH still has two winged angels he received upon his mother's death. He knows where the idea came from and will let them go one day.


----------



## Guitarhero (May 31, 2010)

Well, Jesus did come in the flesh, visibly.  And his apostles and others had made a likeness of him that has been carried throughout the ages.  I'm talking of ancient icons and not of European paintings.  Maybe He was saying that He's the Lord of the Sabbath and scripture, not the other way around.  There are many things which seem conflicted in the scriptures.


----------



## aribell (May 31, 2010)

AfriPrincess411 said:


> 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.


 
God did come in the flesh, though.  He took on human nature and became seeable, touchable, hearable.  I don't think that the Lord has an issue with presenting Himself to us in a way that we can understand--that is what He has to do to communicate with us.

As far as pictures go, personally I find no use or benefit of looking at or meditating on pictures or statues of Jesus.  I'm also not concerned about what He looked like.  Even if He did have blonde hair and blue eyes, that would make Him no less my Savior.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (May 31, 2010)

AfriPrincess411 said:


> 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.
> ...



You might want to check a Bible Concordance (Perhaps Strong's) under 'images' 'idols', 'idolatry'.  Then look at the Scriptures and see what happened eventually to God's people when they got involved with images and idolatry. You should get a lot of information straight from the mouth of God that may answer your questions and confirm your beliefs.


----------



## Mamita (May 31, 2010)

i have to say catholic views messed me up cause unconsciously i still sometimes picture that white hippie lol

then i have to think and be logical, i never seen a jew look like that, and he preached against long hair for men and it's said he wasn't attractive at all

so i have to force myself to think of an ugly lil man with a tan and black hair and short sheep like hair lool

if every image shows a white guy with blue eyes and blond hair, and people picture that to pray, it is idolatry because there's no way Jesus looked like that, and there's most certainly someone who's looked like that one day and that's who we're idolating (?) that's why any fixed image of anything that's in heaven or on earth is an obstacle to our spirituality. we have to be smart and not mind that the image in our head is ever changing in the limits of what's possible and what was written


----------



## azuquita_morena (May 31, 2010)

I totally agree. I grew up in a household where we did not have any images. My mom took that having no graven images to heart. We couldn't even watch many religious movies due to the depiction of Jesus in them. I actually still continue this even until this day. I don't have any images in my mind of God, and I know the depiction of Jesus that has been shown throughout the ages is inacurate. I really feel like this is the way it should be. I can't explain it, it's just a feeling I have. I'm with the Jewish and Muslims on this one.




AfriPrincess411 said:


> 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.
> ...


----------



## Guitarhero (May 31, 2010)

Graven images of a false God and images representing the one True God are different things altogether...just to make mention of that.


----------



## azuquita_morena (May 31, 2010)

I understand what you are saying, but I believe neither is acceptable in the eyes of God according to the Bible.




Natchitoches said:


> Graven images of a false God and images representing the one True God are different things altogether...just to make mention of that.


----------



## DDTexlaxed (May 31, 2010)

When people use idols and images, they really aren't showing true faith. Their faith is based on sight. In the Bible, only false gods were worshiped by idols. God banned the use of images/ idols in His worship.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (May 31, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> I understand what you are saying, but I believe neither is acceptable in the eyes of God according to the Bible.



But did He ban the likeness of His OWN image?


And does everyone who happens to have a picture of Jesus actually worship the picture?

I have never had such a picture, but I know people who do, and for them it was just simply put: having an image of the God they serve in their house.  They weren't worshiping it in any form or fashion.  

This is one of those instances where I think the saying: "God knows your heart" comes into being.  I personally believe that when the Word speaks against graven images and such that it was referring to worshiping and idolizing things such as statues of Buddha for example.


----------



## Mamita (May 31, 2010)

DDTexlaxed said:


> When people use idols and images, they really aren't showing true faith. Their faith is based on sight. In the Bible, only false gods were worshiped by idols. God banned the use of images/ idols in His worship.



yeaaah true I forgot romans 8 24] For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
[25] But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

and i think in God's holy plan the fact we are not supposed to have any idea what he or Jesus looks like is important and a part of the process. It just makes sense to me with the plan revealed in the scriptures. That's real faith


----------



## Mamita (May 31, 2010)

nathansgirl1908 said:


> But did He ban the likeness of His OWN image?
> 
> 
> And does everyone who happens to have a picture of Jesus actually worship the picture?
> ...



yeah but don't you know someone's heart from their fruits? such as needing an image of the Lord they serve not being content with just his blessings and his word?


----------



## azuquita_morena (May 31, 2010)

As quoted by Nymphe in this thread:



> *Exodus 20:4 *You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


 
I take this to mean including God Himself and Jesus.





nathansgirl1908 said:


> But did He ban the likeness of His OWN image?
> 
> 
> And does everyone who happens to have a picture of Jesus actually worship the picture?
> ...


----------



## Guitarhero (May 31, 2010)

nathansgirl1908 said:


> But did He ban the likeness of His OWN image?
> 
> 
> And does everyone who happens to have a picture of Jesus actually worship the picture?
> ...



 Icons are actually windows into heaven.  They remind of us the life of the person they represent and there is a spiritual aspect to them, drawing one closer to the one represented.  I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with them but they are highly stylized and the colors and positioning tell a story of the characteristic of the person.  

I personally comprehend everyone's opinions about it but I wished they understood ours.  We are not worshipping graven images.  Those are false gods.  I dunno lol.  I did used to wonder how Jesus could be God, a mere human.  But somehow, it's all been worked out, blessed icons and all.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (May 31, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> I totally agree. I grew up in a household where we did not have any images. My mom took that having no graven images to heart. We couldn't even watch many religious movies due to the depiction of Jesus in them. I actually still continue this even until this day. I don't have any images in my mind of God, and I know the depiction of Jesus that has been shown throughout the ages is inacurrate. I really feel like this is the way it should be. I can't explain it, it's just a feeling I have. I'm with the Jewish and Muslims on this one.



A rose called by any other name....is still a rose.
So is a cabbage. Those familiar with history recognize that pagan idols have been renamed to make them acceptable to Christians. Pagans know this. The world knows this. Seems like the only ones who overlook it are those who want to have graven images and idols as part of their worship. Change the names and say it is for a 'good cause' and they are good to go. Trace those idols and images and all roads lead back to Babylon......This practice of images, was embraced in every world empire.   But, hey, the Bible talks about 'not communicating with the DEAD, too'... yet many choose to pray to and talk to 'DEAD saints'.  Does this mean that there are no 'live saints' to consider as examples?   Raises many questions, doesn't it?....


----------



## Sharpened (May 31, 2010)

> *Isaiah 53:2* He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.
> 
> *2 Corinthians 5:7* For we walk by faith, not by sight.


   Images are a distraction, made important in corporal men’s minds. The only image we should worry about is the spiritual one Jesus painted for us. Nothing has changed.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (May 31, 2010)

AfriPrincess411 said:


> 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.
> ...



Here are some Scriptures to consider:

Deuteronomy 5:8 “Thou shalt NOT MAKE THEE  'ANY' GRAVEN IMAGE, or 'ANY' LIKENESS any likeness of 'ANY THING' THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9Thou SHALT NOT BOW DOWN THYSELF UNTO THEM, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God AM A JEALOUS GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, 10And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments”. 
Deuteronomy 4:16 “ so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,”
Romans 1: 19  “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into AN IMAGE LIKE TO CORRUPTIBLE MAN, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
"

Apparently He is speaking to His people...and He is speaking on the matter of Worship. Now different people who say they are His people, have differering views on His Word, but I do not read anywhere in this that He made ANY exceptions. I personally take it that He is saying 'Do NOT  EVEN MAKE ANY....OF ANYTHING.....' LET ALONE "BOW DOWN' TO 'ANY' OF 'ANYTHING'.  I appreciate that there are those that will say: "that is not what He was saying, therefore that is NOT what He meant."  So be it. That is on them. I am accountable for Me.


----------



## Guitarhero (May 31, 2010)

I dunno, I'm rather suprised at the responses.  Not angry, it is a little comical.  I can understand the misunderstanding though about why we have them.  It's that interpretation thingy again.  We certainly are different and it's important to me to know how others see us.  I'm just a little shocked because it's so natural.  I'm all for knowing things first-hand.

For me it's a reminder everytime I see it that this world is temporal and that His is everlasting.  Um, that's in addition to reading the Word.  It's really not the case we are weak at all.  I am rather strengthened by it.  But then again, I prefer to use the image He has allowed us to see of His actual self.  I know that one is going to get rolled eyes lolol.  I bow before the altar whenever I cross in front of it.  I also kneel at Mary's altar.  Being catholic is not going to make me ashamed I'm "different" and all the other catholic lurkers shouldn't feel that way either.  It's out of repect.  If I loved my mother, imagine how Jesus loved His.  God bless us all here together despite our troubles comprehending each other in this one body of Christ.    It's really not that serious.  Hell-fire is not awaiting, whether one does or doesn't.  We're simply ancient culture.

2 Chron. 7:14

14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. NKJV


That's an incredible deep scripture.


----------



## azuquita_morena (May 31, 2010)

See, I don't get that "if you don't follow it this particular way that you will go straight to hell" thing. That goes against my beliefs. I wish I knew all the answers, but I don't. My beliefs come from what I read and interpret from my Bible. Most of the time, I read it literally, unless it is in the form of parable and the like. I don't belong to any denomination, but I do understand that people have different interpretations. 

Actually this thread does bring up the question if God would understand ones intentions if you do something that *may* be contrary to what is stated in the Bible. Like in this thread how they are people who have images that are not of pagan idols, but of Jesus for example. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure. However, I believe in a more merciful God than most people, so I would *think* he does.




Natchitoches said:


> I dunno, I'm rather suprised at the responses. Not angry, it is a little comical. I can understand the misunderstanding though about why we have them. It's that interpretation thingy again. We certainly are different and it's important to me to know how others see us. I'm just a little shocked because it's so natural. I'm all for knowing things first-hand.
> 
> For me it's a reminder everytime I see it that this world is temporal and that His is everlasting. Um, that's in addition to reading the Word. It's really not the case we are weak at all. I am rather strengthened by it. But then again, I prefer to use the image He has allowed us to see of His actual self. I know that one is going to get rolled eyes lolol. I bow before the altar whenever I cross in front of it. I also kneel at Mary's altar. Being catholic is not going to make me ashamed I'm "different" and all the other catholic lurkers shouldn't feel that way either. It's out of repect. If I loved my mother, imagine how Jesus loved His. God bless us all here together despite our troubles comprehending each other in this one body of Christ.  It's really not that serious. Hell-fire is not awaiting, whether one does or doesn't. We're simply ancient culture.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sharpened (May 31, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> See, I don't get that "if you don't follow it this particular way that you will go straight to hell" thing. That goes against my beliefs. I wish I knew all the answers, but I don't. My beliefs come from what I read and interpret from my Bible. Most of the time, I read it literally, unless it is in the form of parable and the like. I don't belong to any denomination, but I do understand that people have different interpretations.
> 
> Actually this thread does bring up the question if God would understand ones intentions if you do something that *may* be contrary to what is stated in the Bible. Like in this thread how they are people who have images that are not of pagan idols, but of Jesus for example. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure. However, I believe in a more merciful God than most people, so I would *think* he does.


I think the main problem is very few ask Him what He thinks, wait for the answer and accept it. Until then, we have the example we need to follow: Jesus.


----------



## Guitarhero (May 31, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> See, *I don't get that "if you don't follow it this particular way that you will go straight to hell" thing.* That goes against my beliefs. I wish I knew all the answers, but I don't. My beliefs come from what I read and interpret from my Bible. Most of the time, I read it literally, unless it is in the form of parable and the like. I don't belong to any denomination, but I do understand that people have different interpretations.
> 
> Actually this thread does bring up the question if God would understand ones intentions if you do something that *may* be contrary to what is stated in the Bible. Like in this thread how they are people who have images that are not of pagan idols, but of Jesus for example. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure. However, I believe in a more merciful God than most people, so I would *think* he does.



Thank you.  I never have either.  That very thing has so literally ripped the soul out of so many people and I believe it grieves God.  But somehow, He lets one know where they should be.  You just gotta keep on keeping on.  You can't believe the things that "well-meaning" christians have said to me.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (May 31, 2010)

Mamita said:


> yeah but don't you know someone's heart from their fruits? such as needing an image of the Lord they serve not being content with just his blessings and his word?



I fail to see how you deduce that they are not content with just His blessings and His Word from the fact that they have a picture of Him on their wall.

That just sounds over-the-top and extra to me.

It is attitudes like this that make me very hesitant and reluctant to engage in discussions with others about religious issues.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (May 31, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> I take this to mean including God Himself and Jesus.



Which makes absolutely no sense to me.  

And I still don't understand why people are assuming that because someone has a picture up, that they are worshiping it.  What do you think there people are doing with the pictures?  Sacrificing animals beneath its position on the wall?  

And does this mean that people who have up family photos are worshiping the family member depicted in the photo?


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (May 31, 2010)

Natchitoches said:


> You can't believe the things that "well-meaning" christians have said to me.



Same here.  But I have come to realize that some of them are not "well-meaning."  In many instances they are trying to show that they are spiritually superior to you.  More Holy then you are.  But what they fail to realize is that they show their true colors by the things they say.


I'm just thankful that I serve a god who imposes discipline, but who doesn't operate by the same rigid, unbending, and often ridiculous beliefs and notions of man.  We would ALL be in trouble if that was the case.


----------



## azuquita_morena (May 31, 2010)

Not sure this was directed at me, but I definitely do not want to come of that way. I was just stating what *I* believe. If you agree, cool, if not, still cool. I'm just a person that likes to engage in conversation. I believe from discussions with people of opposing views, you do learn. Actually that's the story of my life lol.


I definitely don't claim to know it all. I'm actually re-entering my path towards spirituality after some rough times I went through during my college & post-college years. Plus, I grew up pretty much having beliefs different than everyone else. Sort of like a religious/spiritual outcast. I've experience all and heard all in regards to the "spiritually superior" people. So, I do understand where you are coming from.


In regards to the previous question, I really took that to mean literally nothing in the Heavens, nor below the Earth we should have a graven image. To me, this would include no graven images of angels or demons as well. Some people may not have as strict of interpretation. However, I do and it works for me. I don't personally need those images to have faith and know they exists. Of course, the way I worship God is different from others as well.



nathansgirl1908 said:


> Same here. But I have come to realize that some of them are not "well-meaning." In many instances they are trying to show that they are spiritually superior to you. More Holy then you are. But what they fail to realize is that they show their true colors by the things they say.
> 
> 
> I'm just thankful that I serve a god who imposes discipline, but who doesn't operate by the same rigid, unbending, and often ridiculous beliefs and notions of man. We would ALL be in trouble if that was the case.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (May 31, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> Not sure this was directed at me, but I definitely do not want to come of that way. I was just stating what *I* believe. If you agree, cool, if not, still cool. I'm just a person that likes to engage in conversation. I belief from discussions with people of opposing views, you do learn. Actually that's the story of my life lol.
> 
> 
> I definitely don't claim to know it all. I'm actually re-entering my path towards spirituality after some rough times I went through during my college & post-college years. Plus, I grew up pretty much having beliefs different than everyone else. Sort of like a religious/spiritual outcast. I've experience all and heard all in regards to the "spiritually superior" people. So, I do understand where you are coming from.
> ...



It is good that we can have this discussion.  

I admit that I am curious as to how this belief "works for you."  Is it that you believe that you would find yourself worshiping the picture?

As I mentioned previously, I take the part in the Word about graven images to mean things like Buddha statues and such.  Things that have no relation whatsoever to God.


----------



## azuquita_morena (Jun 1, 2010)

It is that, but mostly that I feel some kind of way worshipping an image that is most likely inaccurate. No one knows what He looks like, and I *feel* that the reason why we don't know exactly how He looks and why we shouldn't have an image in mind is that it does not matter in terms with your walk with Him. 

Again this is my sentiment. I feel that why does it say, no graven images of what is above in the Heavens (which would include God, angels) and in the Earth below (Satan, demons) if that's not what it meant. I guess maybe some people interpret that not as literal as I do.




nathansgirl1908 said:


> It is good that we can have this discussion.
> 
> I admit that I am curious as to how this belief "works for you." Is it that you believe that you would find yourself worshiping the picture?
> 
> As I mentioned previously, I take the part in the Word about graven images to mean things like Buddha statues and such. Things that have no relation whatsoever to God.


----------



## Guitarhero (Jun 1, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> N*ot sure this was directed at me, *but I definitely do not want to come of that way. I was just stating what *I* believe. If you agree, cool, if not, still cool. I'm just a person that likes to engage in conversation. I believe from discussions with people of opposing views, you do learn. Actually that's the story of my life lol.
> 
> 
> I definitely don't claim to know it all. I'm actually re-entering my path towards spirituality after some rough times I went through during my college & post-college years. Plus, I grew up pretty much having beliefs different than everyone else. Sort of like a religious/spiritual outcast. I've experience all and heard all in regards to the "spiritually superior" people. So, I do understand where you are coming from.
> ...




To the first bolded, I'm sure not.  We often bring into the discussion our own personal struggles with people not at all represented here.  

To the second bolded, taken from scriptures, God told Moises to fashion a pole with a snake for healing the people if they were bitten and gazed upon it.  The cross is that symbol since the day Jesus was crucified upon it.  We look to Him that was lifted up.

Numbers 21: 6-9
[SIZE=-1]_6Then the Lord sent *venomous  snakes* among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7The people came to Moses and said, "We  sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from  us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake  and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9So Moses made  a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and *looked*  at the bronze snake, he *lived*._[/SIZE]




It's not without incident that the medical symbol is actually taken from  ancient times, Moises.

John 8:28 _So Jesus said, "When you lift up the  Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own  initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me_.

This wasn't just speaking of praise and worship as we could say.  He was lifted up on a cross, a visible symbol or object of adoration, held dear to all christians.  We make that sign on our foreheads and it is the sign spoken of.

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Ezechiel 9:4[/FONT]
_[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]And the Lord  said 		      to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of  Jerusalem: 		      and mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and mourn  for all 		      the abominations that are committed in the midst thereof. [/FONT]_

Revelations 22:4
_They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads._

John 12:32
_As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to  myself._"


The most holy object, the Ark of the Covenant.  Images of cherubim.  Sacred ceremony was held regarding it.

Joshua 3:11
_"Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth"

_The command was not to make a symbol such that one worshipped any God that was not the God of Israel.  Of course, this is the lesson I was given and is not an attempt to change anybody's beliefs.  I'm representing why WE do things that way.  I won't just sit back and have folks calling us pagans when I know it's not true.  Gotta represent  at least to set the story straight.  People can do and think what they want.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

I thought that this information might be useful.
I posted a historical note regarding Catholics and the Ten Commandments, and then I posted the Catholic site that gives both the Catholic and Protestant Commandments, and there it also includes the Scripture that the Lists were taken from:

Historical note: The Pope deleted the 2nd of the 10 commandments so they could use statues & images in worship. They split the 10th commandment on coveting into two commandments so they could still have 10 in number. Don’t believe this? Look at the list of 10 commandments published by the Roman Catholic church! The issue here is not how the Ten Commandments are numbered, rather the issue is that most published lists of the 10 commandments do not include the words, "you shall not make for yourself an idol". Open your Catholic Bible and look for yourself!
http://www.catholicbible101.com/thetencommandments.htm
Commandments 
The Ten Commandments as handed down by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai were the beginning of the nation of Israel, when they were leaving Egypt as slaves, for freedom in the promised land.  They were considered to be the Law of God for his chosen people.  There are, however, some major differences in interpretation.  There is a difference in what the Catholic Church uses as the Ten Commandments and what the protestant churches use.  In the Catholic Church they are as follows:



1.     I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me. 
2.     You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain 
3.     Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day 
4.     Honor your father and your mother 
5.     You shall not kill 
6.     You shall not commit adultery 
7.     You shall not steal 
8.     You shall not bear false witness 
9.     You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods

In the Protestant Churches, they are as follows, with the differences highlighted:

1.     You shall have no other gods but me.
2.     You shall not make unto you any graven images
3.     You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain!
4.     You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5.     Honor your mother and father
6.     You shall not murder
7.     You shall not commit adultery
8.     You shall not steal
9.     You shall not bear false witness
10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

The differences are that the protestant churches forbid any graven images, the word “kill” is replaced by the word “murder”, and they lump all covetous things together, while the Catholic Church specifically adds the prohibition of coveting your neighbor’s wife.  Why the differences? 

 The 10 Commandments come to us from Exodus 20:2-17, which reads as follows:

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. 

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 

Thou shalt not kill. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery. 

Thou shalt not steal. 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

From Exodus 20, one can see that either list is an abbreviated version of the prohibitions.  How they are abbreviated is the key.  The Catholic Church has had its list of 10 Commandments for around 2000 years, while the protestant churches have had their list for almost 500 years.  

http://www.catholicbible101.com/thetencommandments.htm


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

Natchitoches said:


> To the first bolded, I'm sure not.  We often bring into the discussion our own personal struggles with people not at all represented here.
> 
> To the second bolded, taken from scriptures, God told Moises to fashion a pole with a snake for healing the people if they were bitten and gazed upon it.  The cross is that symbol since the day Jesus was crucified upon it.  We look to Him that was lifted up.
> 
> ...



What stands out here to me from those Scriptures, without exception, is that what was done, in each case was AT THE COMMAND OF GOD.
What is mentioned in Exodus and Leviticus IS ALSO A COMMAND. (I.E 10 COMMANDMENTS)
I do understand what you are saying:
What I am looking at is that: When something is made AT THE COMMAND of God, it is different than something being made by Man on his own, e.g like Pagans.

As when the Commandment says: 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF ANY....." this is where the 'violation comes in', because OUTSIDE THE COMMAND OF GOD, we are doing it ON OUR OWN.

God is God. Man is Man UNDER the Commands of God. Some things are reserved strictly for God, and some things are restricted to man BY GOD. That is what it boils down to for me.


----------



## Guitarhero (Jun 1, 2010)

Mahalialee4 said:


> What stands out here to me from those Scriptures, without exception, is that what was done, in each case was AT THE COMMAND OF GOD.
> What is mentioned in Exodus and Leviticus IS ALSO A COMMAND. (I.E 10 COMMANDMENTS)
> I do understand what you are saying:
> What I am looking at is that: When something is made AT THE COMMAND of God, it is different than something being made by Man on his own, e.g like Pagans.
> ...



Pants or skirts?  Men aren't to wear effeminate clothing, directly commanded by God.  Does that mean women are wrong for wearing pants?  If we do such, are we directly going outside His command?  Since I'm not a pagan, I can't attest to what they do.  I posted those to demonstrate why we do things, not in an attempt to tell others they are wrong for NOT doing those things.  It's the tradition that makes us different from you.  I can't give a protestant perspective because I'm not one.  We don't apologize for tradition and don't expect you to apologize for not having it either, out of respect.  Every man to himself.  The world is just that big.   

I don't know one person who worships a statue.  But I do know plenty of people who venerate the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.


----------



## SND411 (Jun 1, 2010)

It's not so mcuh about worshipping the image, but the image becoming a distraction. Why do we as worshippers need images at all when we have His Word?


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

This is only addressed to those who QUESTION the use of images and even those who Question the Origin of these images. From this information, you can read it without having to be found offending other Christians by questioning them.

I posted these Scriptures from the 'Douay' Bible. I am also posting quotations from Catholic leaders on the subject of images. I think we need to see a complete perspective of this. So these Scriptures are not "protestant slanted'.

Scriptures: 

Quote: 1 Corinthians 12: 2 “You know that when you were heathens, you went to dumb idols, according as you were led.”                                                                                         1Thessalonians 1:9: “For they themselves relate of us, what manner of entering in we had unto you; and how you turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God.
The Man ..Paul did not accept worship or adoration:
Acts 14: “11 And when the multitudes had seen what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice in the Lycaonian tongue, saying: The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men; 12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury; because he was chief speaker. 13 The priest also of Jupiter that was before the city, bringing oxen and garlands before the gate, would have offered sacrifice with the people. 14 Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying, 15 And saying: Ye men, why do ye these things? We also are mortals, men like unto you, preaching to you to be converted from these vain things, to the living God, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them:”
The Man--Peter refused worship and adoration:
Acts 10:25 And it came to pass, that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him, Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet adored. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying: Arise, I myself also am a man
God’s Holy Angels refused worship and adoration
Revelation 19:10 “And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Revelation 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
Revelation 22:9 And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God.
Regarding Christians….WHAT BENEFIT IS USING IMAGES FOR YOU?
Habakkuk 2:18 "What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork When he fashions speechless idols.”
Then some say that these images are saints who have died… are now like angels in heaven:. Some ‘flagellate’ themselves with tiny ‘whips’, which the pagans also do, (many until blood runs), and some do this in front of images or pictures or idols
Colossians 2:18 “Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh,”


Can Idols Be A Snare?
Judges 2:12 “And they left the Lord the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt: and they followed strange gods, and the gods of the people that dwelt round about them, and they adored them: and they provoked the Lord to anger.”
Isaiah 44:9 The makers of idols are all of them nothing, and their best beloved things shall not profit them. They are their witnesses, that they do not see, nor understand, that they may be ashamed
Ezekiel 20: But they provoked me, and would not hearken to me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of his eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: and I said I would pour out my indignation upon them, and accomplish my wrath against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.
Psalm 97: 7“Ashamed be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols. Worship him, all ye gods.


unquote


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

To avoid getting into strife and debates, this information will go a long way into understanding Catholics and why they believe the way they do.  Let the quotes speak for themselves. Those who are Protestants need information from their point of view.

Appreciating Catholic Beliefs:

 	“The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” — An Essay on the The Development of the Christian Doctrine John Henry “Cardinal Newman” p.373.
 	“It is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans … Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds…” — (The Externals of the Catholic Church, Her Government, Ceremonies, Festivals, Sacramentals and Devotions, by John F. Sullivan, p 156, published by P.J. Kennedy, NY, 1942).
 	“The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. ... The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands. ... The PAGAN Sunday dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus.” — Catholic William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, wrote in The Catholic World, March, 1894, page 809.
 	 	“The adoration of idols that is in Babylon was succeeded by the adoration of saints.” — Henry Thomas Buckle, a world-famous historian, says in his book The History of Civilization, Volume 1, page 188.
 	The book Catholic Belief, by Roman Catholic scholar Father Joseph Faà di Bruno, page 45, states this: “Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible AND divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of EQUAL sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition is to us MORE clear and safe.” Are the traditions, customs and practices of man safer than the Bible? Rome baptizes tradition with the word “divine” and dares to hold it above the Bible.
 	“Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is IMPOSSIBLE.” — Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and noted writer, said in The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

Tradition Is Very Important to Catholics and the Catholic Church:

The quotes from Catholic leaders show where Tradition stands in relation to Scripure.

"In 1562 the Archbishop of Reggio openly declared that tradition now stood above scripture. This is what he wrote. “The authority of the Church is illustrated most clearly by the scriptures, for on one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, and offers them to us to be read, and on the other hand, the legal precepts in the scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day. These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for He says that He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the Church.” — Gaspare de Posso, Archbishop of Reggio, Council of Trent.
 	“The pope has power to change times, abrogate laws, and dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.” — Decretal De Translat. Espiscop. Cap.
 	“The authority of the Church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed…the Sabbath to Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by its own authority.” — Cannon and Tradition, p.263.

 	“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of human flesh.” — Catholic National, July 1895.
 	“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” — Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous.”
 	“We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty.” — Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

Comments by 'Christian Church Historians' helping to understand the Catholic Church.
There are also comments from noted Roman Catholic Scholars

 	Doctor Alexander Hislop, in his classic work, The Two Babylon’s, page 105, says this: “To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals [that’s the Sabbath and Sunday] amalgamated, and ... to get Paganism and Christianity now far sunk in idolatry in this as in so many other things, to shake hands.” He says further: “A glance at the main pillars of the Papal system will sufficiently prove that its doctrine and discipline in all essential respects have been derived from BABYLON.”
 	“In ancient Babylonia the SUN was WORSHIPPED from immemorial antiquity.” — Sir James G. Frazer, an authoritative scholar, makes this statement in his book The Worship of Nature, Volume 1, page 529.
 	“The doctrine of natural, as distinguished from Christian, immortality ... crept into the Church, by a BACK DOOR. ... When arguments are offered for the purely natural immortality of the soul, they are rarely, if ever, derived from Scripture. ... The natural immortality of the soul is a doctrine wholly unknown to the Holy Scriptures, and standing on no higher plane than that of ... PHILOSOPHICAL OPINION ... of philosophical speculations DISGUISED as truths of Divine Revelation.” — William E. Gladstone, four-time Prime Minister of Great Britain and a theologian in his own right, wrote in Studies Subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler, pp. 195-198.
 	“The adoration of idols that is in Babylon was succeeded by the adoration of saints.” — Henry Thomas Buckle, a world-famous historian, says in his book The History of Civilization, Volume 1, page 188.
 	The book Catholic Belief, by Roman Catholic scholar Father Joseph Faà di Bruno, page 45, states this: “Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible AND divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of EQUAL sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition is to us MORE clear and safe.” Are the traditions, customs and practices of man safer than the Bible? Rome baptizes tradition with the word “divine” and dares to hold it above the Bible.
 	“Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is IMPOSSIBLE.” — Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore and noted writer, said in The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.
 	“One cannot well refer to those cults of Babylon and Egypt and the rest as DEAD religions. For the echo of their ancient thunder is still to be heard reverberating in almost every form of faith existing today. Ancient Babylonian image worship is in the church today. Ancient Babylonian sun worship is there. Ancient Babylonian belief in the immortality of the soul is there. Yes, the echo of that thunder is still heard in the church today!” — Lewis Brown says this in The Believing World, page 112.
 	“His coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of Christ; on the other, the figure of the SUN GOD, as if he could not bear to relinquish the patronage of the bright luminary.” — Historian Arthur P. Stanley in his book, The History of the Eastern Church, page 184, says this about the Roman Emperor Constantine.


Rather than debating about things which only seems to create defensiveness and perhaps hurt feelings....you can read this material and have greater understanding regarding where 'Catholic' Christians are coming from and why they feel the way they do...and appreciate how and what they have been taught.  We understand that they have a different 'theological' doctrine of Images, saints etc. than do some other 'Christian' churches.

The Catholic Church believes that it has 'Divine Right' to exercise great ecclesiatical power and authority:

“The church may by divine right confiscate the property of heretics, imprison their person, and condemn them to flames. In our age, the right to inflict the severest penalties, even death, belongs to the church. There is no graver offense than heresy, therefore it must be rooted out.” — Public Eccliastical, Vol. 2, p.142.


There is no condemnation, just posting documented information.  I prefer to let Catholic literature define their beliefs.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

For those who wish to research the material feel free do so.

Further Catholic Quotes: 
“The Pope is of great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth...” — Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #30, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.
“We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God....dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority....I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” — Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope).
“We confess that the Pope has power of changing Scripture and of adding to it, and taking from it, according to his will.” — Roman Catholic Confessions for Protestants Oath, Article XI, (Confessio Romano-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice praescripta te proposita, editi a Streitwolf), as recorded in Congressional Record of the U.S.A., House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913.
“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” — Rome’s Challenge www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline December 2003
“And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.” — St. Alphonsus De Liguori, in The Dignity of the Priesthood, p. 27.
“Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” — Catholic Bishop Nemesianus of Thubunae, The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V.
“When we say that faith is necessary for the remission of sins, we mean to speak of the Catholic faith, not heretical faith. Without the habit of this faith, no man is justified.” — St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 3: “The Book of Faith”, Chapter 1, “There is No Salvation Except in the Catholic Faith”).
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.” — St. Gregory the Great (Quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio (On Mixed Marriages), Encyclical promulgated on May 27, 1832, #5.
“It is absolutely necessary that the Christian community be subject in all things to the Sovereign Pontiff if it wishes to be a part of the divinely-established society founded by our Redeemer.” — Pope Pius XII, Orientalis Ecclesiae, quoted in “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”, 36:129, Rome: Vatican Press, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: “The Book of Christians”, Chapter 4: “There is No Allegiance to Christ Without Submission to the Pope”).

Not about to try and change anyone and what they believe.
It is what it is.


----------



## Mamita (Jun 1, 2010)

Natchitoches said:


> I don't know one person who worships a statue.  But I do know plenty of people who venerate the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.













that is not merely people who just HAPPENED to pray where a statue was, they are praying to that statue. that's looks and smells like worship to me
And God dosn't have a mother lol the flesh that He made for Himself to sacrifice for mankind had a mother ... but that's off topic

just thought i'd share those pics cause they shocked me


----------



## Mamita (Jun 1, 2010)

now these people feel justified to be praying to that biblical figure, but that is praying to someone other than God, same thing for the saints, and same thing for Jesus the flesh (that had a face, hair, eyes different than anythng u can see around).
that's the only thing u can't deny is that prayers are being sent to some who are not God by being on ur knees in front of a paiting or a statue.

worship : a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The *ceremonies*, *prayers*, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

If you want to research the information that I posted information: Here are a couple of sources for your own information.
The above information can be found in the books, 1. The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop and 2.  the Angel of Light by Jack Chick. Alexander Hislop in his book also traces Roman Catholic sacraments, ceremonies, doctrines, confessionals, priesthood, etc. back to ancient Babylonian Baal worship.

You will then note the Catholic and Scholarly references included in those materials when you check out these books from which quotes are taken.  Hope this helps. In all fairness, I will post more material, but I will also post some very relevant  Protestant information that Protestants may want to consider on certain doctrines and practices they uphold as well.

The Focus can not be just on the Catholic Church and its doctrines and teachings.  Every church has to look at itself. The Protestant Churches have in the past been very outspoken about the Catholic Church and those Catholics on the board may feel they have been 'ganged upon'.

What I am going to be posting  allows Protestants to judge themselves by the same standards that they  would judge Catholocism and determine if there is 'a beam in the eyes' of Protestants as well.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

Constantine's decree: "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed." (Constantine, March 7, 321. Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1) 


Quote out of Adventist Revelation seminar book: Catholic Catechism, Peter Geierman, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50.
Q. What is the Third Commandment?
A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? 
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." 





In All fairness:

CATHOLICISM SPEAKS 
"Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles . . . From beginning to end of scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first."--Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900. 
"Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the [Roman Catholic] Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath."--John Gilmary Shea, in the "American Catholic Quarterly Review," January 1883. 
"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church."--Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, N.J. "News" of March 18, 1903. 
"Ques.--Have you any other way of proving that the [Catholic] Church has power to institute festivals of precept [to command holy days] ?"
"Ans.--Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her: She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."--Stephan Keenan, "A Doctrinal Catechism," p. 176. 
"Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."--"The Catholic Mirror," December 23, 1893. 
"God simply gave His [Catholic] Church the power to set aside whatever day or days, she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days, as holy days."--Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," p. 2. 
"Protestants . . . accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change . . . But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that in accepting the Bible, in observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope."--"Our Sunday Visitor," February 5, 1950. 
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."--Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter, dated June 20, 1894. 
Not the Creator of the Universe, in Genesis 2:1-3,--but the Catholic Church "can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days"--S.C. Mosna, "Storia della Domenica," 1969, pp. 366-367. 
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under veil of flesh."--"The Catholic National,"July 1895. 
"If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920. 
"We define that the Holy Apostolic See [the Vatican] and the Roman Pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world."--A Decree of the Council of Trent, quoted in Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, 'The Most Holy Councils," Vol. 13, col. 1167. 
"It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest [from the Bible Sabbath] to the Sunday . . . Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church."--Monsignor Louis Segur, "Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today," p. 213. 
"We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."--Peter Geiermann, CSSR, "A Doctrinal Catechism," 1957 edition, p. 50. 
"We Catholics, then, have precisely the same authority for keeping Sunday holy instead of Saturday as we have for every other article of our creed, namely, the authority of the Church . . . whereas you who are Protestants have really no authority for it whatever; for there is no authority for it [Sunday sacredness] in the Bible, and you will not allow that there can be authority for it anywhere else. Both you and we do, in fact, follow tradition in this matter; but we follow it, believing it to be a part of God's word, and the [Catholic] Church to be its divinely appointed guardian and interpreter; you follow it [the Catholic Church], denouncing it all the time as a fallible and treacherous guide, which often 'makes the commandments of God of none effect' quoting Matthew 15:6] ."--The Brotherhood of St. Paul, "The Clifton Tracts," Vol. 4, tract 4, p. 15. 
"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant."--"The Catholic Universe Bulletin," August 14, 1942, p.

to be continued


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

continued from last post:

"It would be an error to attribute ['the sanctification of Sunday'] to a definite decision of the Apostles. There is no such decision mentioned in the Apostolic documents [that is, the New Testament] ."--Antoine Villien, "A History of the Commandments of the Church," 1915, p. 23. 
"It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day."--McClintock and Strong, "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature," Vol. 9, p. 196. 
"Rites and ceremonies, of which neither Paul nor Peter ever heard, crept silently into use, and then claimed the rank of divine institutions. [Church] officers for whom the primitive disciples could have found no place, and titles which to them would have been altogether unintelligible, began to challenge attention, and to be named apostolic."--William B. Killen, "The Ancient Church," p. xvi.
"Until well into the second century [a hundred years after Christ] we do not find the slightest indication in our sources that Christians marked Sunday by any kind of abstention from work."--W. Rordorf "Sunday," p. 157. 
"The ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed, by the Christians of the Eastern Church [in the area near Palestine] above three hundred years after our Saviour's death."--"A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath," p. 77. 
"Modern Christians who talk of keeping Sunday as a 'holy' day, as in the still extant 'Blue Laws,' of colonial America, should know that as a 'holy' day of rest and cessation from labor and amusements Sunday was unknown to Jesus . . . It formed no tenet [teaching] of the primitive Church and became 'sacred' only in the course of time. Outside the Church its observance was legalized for the Roman Empire through a series of decrees starting with the famous one of Constantine in 321, an edict due to his political and social ideas."--W, W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 257. 
"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."--Augustus Neander "The History of the Christian Religion and Church," 1843, p. 186. 
"The [Catholic] Church took the pagan buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon, [the Roman] temple to all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday . . . The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful: the White God, the old Scandinavians called him. The sun has worshipers at this very hour in Persia and other lands . . . Hence the Church would seem to have said, 'Keep that old, pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon."--William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in "The Catholic World," 58, March, 1894. 
"The Church made a sacred day of Sunday . . . largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun;--for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance."-- Arthur Weigall, "The Paganism in Our Christianity," 1928, p. 145. 
"Remains of the struggle [between the religion of Christianity and the religion of Mithraism] are found in two institutions adopted from its rival by Christianity in the fourth century, the two Mithraic sacred days: December 25, 'dies natalis solis' [birthday of the sun], as the birthday of Jesus,--and Sunday, 'the venerable day of the Sun,' as Constantine called it in his edict of 321."--Walter Woodburn Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," p. 60. 
"Is it not strange that Sunday is almost universally observed when the Sacred Writings do not endorse it? Satan, the great counterfeiter, worked through the 'mystery of iniquity' to introduce a counterfeit sabbath to take the place of the true Sabbath of God. Sunday stands, side by side, with Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Holy (or Maundy) Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Whit-sunday, Corpus Christi, Assumption Day, All Soul's Day, Christmas Day, and a host of other ecclesiastical feast days too numerous to mention. This array of Roman Catholic feasts and fast days are all man made. None of them bears the divine credentials of the Author of the Inspired Word."--M. E. Walsh. 
"Sun worship was the earliest idolatry."--A.R. Fausset, "Bible Dictionary," p. 666. 
Sun worship was "one of the oldest components of the Roman religion."--Gaston H. Halsberghe, "the Cult of Sol Invictus," 1972, p. 26. 
" 'Babylon, the mother of harlots,' derived much of her teaching from pagan Rome and thence from Babylon. Sun worship--that led her to Sundaykeeping,--was one of those choice bits of paganism that sprang originally from the heathen lore of ancient Babylon: 'The solar theology of the 'Chaldaeans' had a decisive effect upon the final development of Semitic paganism . . (It led to their] seeing the sun the directing power of the cosmic system. All the Baals were thence forward turned into suns; the sun itself being the mover of the other stars--like it eternal and "unconquerable.' . . . Such was the final form reached by the religion of the pagan Semites, and, following them, by that of the Romans . . . when they raised 'Sol Invictus' [the Invincible Sun] to the rank of supreme divinity in the Empire."--Franz V.M. Cumont, "The Frontier Provinces of the East," in "The Cambridge Ancient History," Vol. 11, pp. 643, 646-647. 
"With [Constantine's father] Constantius Cholorus (A.D. 305) there ascended the throne [of the Roman Empire] a solar dynasty which . . . professed to have 'Sol Invictus' as its special protector and ancestor. Even the Christian emperors, Constantine and Constantius, did not altogether forget the pretensions which they could derive from so illustrious a descent."--Franz F.V.M. Cumont, "Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Roman," p. 55.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

continued:
When Christianity conquered Rome, the ecclesiastical structure of the pagan church, the title and the vestments of the 'pontifex maximus,' the worship of the 'Great Mother' goddess and a multitude of comforting divinities, . . . the joy or solemnity of old festivals, and the pageantry of immemorial ceremony, passed like material blood into the new religion,--and captive Rome conquered her conqueror. The reins and skills of government were handed down by a dying empire to a virile papacy."--Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ," p. 672. 
"The power of the Caesars lived again in the universal dominion of the popes."--H.G. Guiness, "Romanism and the Reformation." 
"From simple beginnings, the church developed a distinct priesthood and an elaborate service. In this way, Christianity and the higher forms of paganism tended to come nearer and nearer to each other as time went on. In one sense, it is true, they met like armies in mortal conflict, but at the same time they tended to merge into one another like streams which had been following converging courses."--J.H. Robinson, "Introduction to the History of Western Europe," p. 31. 
"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truth. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition [the sayings of popes and councils] is to us more clear and safe."--Di Bruno, "Catholic Belief," p. 33. 
"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D."--"Chamber's Encyclopedia," article, "Sabbath." 
 to be contined to conclusion


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

continued:
Here is the first Sunday Law in history, a legal enactment by Constantine 1 (reigned 306-331): "On the Venerable Day of the Sun ["venerabili die Solis"--the sacred day of the Sun] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost--Given the 7th day of March, [A.D. 321], Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time."--The First Sunday Law of Constantine 1, in "Codex Justinianus," lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Phillip Schaff "History of the Christian Church," Vol. 3, p. 380. 
"This [Constantine's Sunday decree of March, 321] is the 'parent' Sunday law making it a day of rest and release from labor. For from that time to the present there have been decrees about the observance of Sunday which have profoundly influenced European and American society. When the Church became a part of State under the Christian emperors, Sunday observance was enforced by civil statutes, and later when the Empire was past, the Church, in the hands of the papacy, enforced it by ecclesiastical and also by civil enactments."--Walter W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 261. 
"Constantine's decree marked the beginning of a long, though intermittent series of imperial decrees in support of Sunday rest."-- Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," 1943, p. 29. 
"Constantine labored at this time untiringly to unite the worshipers of the old and the new into one religion. All his laws and contrivances are aimed at promoting this amalgamation of religions. He would by all lawful and peaceable means melt together a purified heathenism and a moderated Christianity . . . Of all his blending and melting together of Christianity and heathenism, none is more easy to see through than this making of his Sunday law: The Christians worshiped their Christ, the heathen their Sun-god . . . [so they should now be combined."--H.G. Heggtveit, "illustreret Kirkehistorie," 1895, p. 202. 
"If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration [cursing] of the Jews."--Pope Sylvester, quoted by S.R.E. Humbert, "Adversus Graecorum Calumnias," in J.P. Migne, "Patrologie," p. 143. [Sylvester (A.D. 314-337) was the pope at the time Constantine 1 was Emperor.] 
"All things whatsoever that were prescribed for the [Bible] Sabbath, we have transferred them to the Lord's day, as being more authoritative and more highly regarded and first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath."--Bishop Eusebius, quoted in J.P. Migne, "Patrologie," p. 23, 1169-1172. [Eusebius of Caesarea was a high-ranking Catholic leader during Constantine's lifetime.] 
As we have already noted, excepting for the Roman and Alexandrian Christians, the majority of Christians were observing the seventh-day Sabbath at least as late as the middle of the fifth century [A.D. 450]. The Roman and Alexandrian Christians were among those converted from heathenism. They began observing Sunday as a merry religious festival in honor of the Lord's resurrection, about the latter half of the second century A.D. However, they did not try to teach that the Lord or His apostles commanded it. In fact, no ecclesiastical writer before Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century even suggested that either Christ or His apostles instituted the observance of the first day of the week.
"These Gentile Christians of Rome and Alexandria began calling the first day of the week 'the Lord's day.' This was not difficult for the pagans of the Roman Empire who were steeped in sun worship to accept, because they [the pagans] referred to their sun-god as their 'Lord.' "--EM. Chalmers, "How Sunday Came Into the Christian Church," p. 3.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

The following statement was made 100 years after Constantine's Sunday Law was passed: "Although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."--Socrates Scholasticus, quoted in "Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, chap. 22. [Written shortly after A.D. 439.] 
"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."--Hermias Sozomen, quoted in "Ecclesiastical History," vii, 19, in "A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," 2nd Series, Vol. 2, p. 390. [Written soon after AD. 415.] 
"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was wholly discontinued."--Lyman Coleman, "Ancient Christianity Exemplified" chap. 26, sec. 2, p. 527. 
"Constantine's [five Sunday Law] decrees marked the beginning of a long though intermittent series of imperial decrees in support of Sunday rest."--"A History of the Councils of the Church," Vol. 2, p. 316. 
"What began, however, as a pagan ordinance, ended as a Christian regulation; and a long series of imperial decrees, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, enjoined with increasing stringency abstinence from labor on Sunday."--Huttan Webster, "Rest Days," pp. 122-123, 210. 
Here is the first Sunday Law decree of a Christian council. It was given about 16 years after Constantine's first Sunday Law of A.D. 321: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [in the original: "sabbato"--shall not be idle on the Sabbath], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out ['anathema,'--excommunicated] from Christ."--Council of Laodicea, c. A.D. 337, Canon 29, quoted in C.J. Hefele, "A History of the Councils of the Church," Vol. 2, p. 316. 
"The keeping of the Sunday rest arose from the custom of the people and the constitution of the [Catholic] Church . . . Tertullian was probably the first to refer to a cessation of affairs on the Sun day; the Council of Laodicea issued the first counciliar legislation for that day; Constantine 1 issued the first civil legislation."--Priest Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," p. 203. [A thesis presented to the Catholic University of America.] 
"About 590, Pope Gregory, in a letter to the Roman people, denounced as the prophets of Antichrist those who maintained that work ought not to be done on the seventh day."--James T. Ringgold, "The Law of Sunday," p. 267. 
In the centuries that followed, persecution against believers in the Bible Sabbath intensified until very few were left alive. When the Reformation began, the true Sabbath was almost unknown.
"Now the [Catholic] Church . . . instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory . . . We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."--Martin J. Scott, "Things Catholic's Are Asked About," 1927, p. 236. 
"Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [of the Sabbath to Sunday] was her act . . . AND THE ACT IS A MARK of her ecclesiastical power."--from the office of Cardinal Gibbons, through Chancellor H.F. Thomas, November 11, 1895. 


PROTESTANTS...ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS?

continued from last post:

"It would be an error to attribute ['the sanctification of Sunday'] to a definite decision of the Apostles. There is no such decision mentioned in the Apostolic documents [that is, the New Testament] ."--Antoine Villien, "A History of the Commandments of the Church," 1915, p. 23. 
"It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day."--McClintock and Strong, "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature," Vol. 9, p. 196. 
"Rites and ceremonies, of which neither Paul nor Peter ever heard, crept silently into use, and then claimed the rank of divine institutions. [Church] officers for whom the primitive disciples could have found no place, and titles which to them would have been altogether unintelligible, began to challenge attention, and to be named apostolic."--William B. Killen, "The Ancient Church," p. xvi.
"Until well into the second century [a hundred years after Christ] we do not find the slightest indication in our sources that Christians marked Sunday by any kind of abstention from work."--W. Rordorf "Sunday," p. 157. 
"The ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed, by the Christians of the Eastern Church [in the area near Palestine] above three hundred years after our Saviour's death."--"A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath," p. 77. 
"Modern Christians who talk of keeping Sunday as a 'holy' day, as in the still extant 'Blue Laws,' of colonial America, should know that as a 'holy' day of rest and cessation from labor and amusements Sunday was unknown to Jesus . . . It formed no tenet [teaching] of the primitive Church and became 'sacred' only in the course of time. Outside the Church its observance was legalized for the Roman Empire through a series of decrees starting with the famous one of Constantine in 321, an edict due to his political and social ideas."--W, W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 257.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

MORE FOR THE PROTESTANTS

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."--Augustus Neander "The History of the Christian Religion and Church," 1843, p. 186. 
"The [Catholic] Church took the pagan buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon, [the Roman] temple to all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday . . . The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful: the White God, the old Scandinavians called him. The sun has worshipers at this very hour in Persia and other lands . . . Hence the Church would seem to have said, 'Keep that old, pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon."--William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in "The Catholic World," 58, March, 1894. 
"The Church made a sacred day of Sunday . . . largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun;--for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance."-- Arthur Weigall, "The Paganism in Our Christianity," 1928, p. 145. 
"Remains of the struggle [between the religion of Christianity and the religion of Mithraism] are found in two institutions adopted from its rival by Christianity in the fourth century, the two Mithraic sacred days: December 25, 'dies natalis solis' [birthday of the sun], as the birthday of Jesus,--and Sunday, 'the venerable day of the Sun,' as Constantine called it in his edict of 321."--Walter Woodburn Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," p. 60. 
"Is it not strange that Sunday is almost universally observed when the Sacred Writings do not endorse it? Satan, the great counterfeiter, worked through the 'mystery of iniquity' to introduce a counterfeit sabbath to take the place of the true Sabbath of God. Sunday stands, side by side, with Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Holy (or Maundy) Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Whit-sunday, Corpus Christi, Assumption Day, All Soul's Day, Christmas Day, and a host of other ecclesiastical feast days too numerous to mention. This array of Roman Catholic feasts and fast days are all man made. None of them bears the divine credentials of the Author of the Inspired Word."--M. E. Walsh. 
"Sun worship was the earliest idolatry."--A.R. Fausset, "Bible Dictionary," p. 666. 
Sun worship was "one of the oldest components of the Roman religion."--Gaston H. Halsberghe, "the Cult of Sol Invictus," 1972, p. 26. 
" 'Babylon, the mother of harlots,' derived much of her teaching from pagan Rome and thence from Babylon. Sun worship--that led her to Sundaykeeping,--was one of those choice bits of paganism that sprang originally from the heathen lore of ancient Babylon: 'The solar theology of the 'Chaldaeans' had a decisive effect upon the final development of Semitic paganism . . (It led to their] seeing the sun the directing power of the cosmic system. All the Baals were thence forward turned into suns; the sun itself being the mover of the other stars--like it eternal and "unconquerable.' . . . Such was the final form reached by the religion of the pagan Semites, and, following them, by that of the Romans . . . when they raised 'Sol Invictus' [the Invincible Sun] to the rank of supreme divinity in the Empire."--Franz V.M. Cumont, "The Frontier Provinces of the East," in "The Cambridge Ancient History," Vol. 11, pp. 643, 646-647.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

MORE FOR THE PROTESTANTS

"With [Constantine's father] Constantius Cholorus (A.D. 305) there ascended the throne [of the Roman Empire] a solar dynasty which . . . professed to have 'Sol Invictus' as its special protector and ancestor. Even the Christian emperors, Constantine and Constantius, did not altogether forget the pretensions which they could derive from so illustrious a descent."--Franz F.V.M. Cumont, "Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Roman," p. 55. 
"When Christianity conquered Rome, the ecclesiastical structure of the pagan church, the title and the vestments of the 'pontifex maximus,' the worship of the 'Great Mother' goddess and a multitude of comforting divinities, . . . the joy or solemnity of old festivals, and the pageantry of immemorial ceremony, passed like material blood into the new religion,--and captive Rome conquered her conqueror. The reins and skills of government were handed down by a dying empire to a virile papacy."--Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ," p. 672. 
"The power of the Caesars lived again in the universal dominion of the popes."--H.G. Guiness, "Romanism and the Reformation." 
"From simple beginnings, the church developed a distinct priesthood and an elaborate service. In this way, Christianity and the higher forms of paganism tended to come nearer and nearer to each other as time went on. In one sense, it is true, they met like armies in mortal conflict, but at the same time they tended to merge into one another like streams which had been following converging courses."--J.H. Robinson, "Introduction to the History of Western Europe," p. 31. 
"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truth. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition [the sayings of popes and councils] is to us more clear and safe."--Di Bruno, "Catholic Belief," p. 33. 
"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D."--"Chamber's Encyclopedia," article, "Sabbath." 
Here is the first Sunday Law in history, a legal enactment by Constantine 1 (reigned 306-331): "On the Venerable Day of the Sun ["venerabili die Solis"--the sacred day of the Sun] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost--Given the 7th day of March, [A.D. 321], Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time."--The First Sunday Law of Constantine 1, in "Codex Justinianus," lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Phillip Schaff "History of the Christian Church," Vol. 3, p. 380. 
"This [Constantine's Sunday decree of March, 321] is the 'parent' Sunday law making it a day of rest and release from labor. For from that time to the present there have been decrees about the observance of Sunday which have profoundly influenced European and American society. When the Church became a part of State under the Christian emperors, Sunday observance was enforced by civil statutes, and later when the Empire was past, the Church, in the hands of the papacy, enforced it by ecclesiastical and also by civil enactments."--Walter W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 261. 
"Constantine's decree marked the beginning of a long, though intermittent series of imperial decrees in support of Sunday rest."-- Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," 1943, p. 29. 
"Constantine labored at this time untiringly to unite the worshipers of the old and the new into one religion. All his laws and contrivances are aimed at promoting this amalgamation of religions. He would by all lawful and peaceable means melt together a purified heathenism and a moderated Christianity . . . Of all his blending and melting together of Christianity and heathenism, none is more easy to see through than this making of his Sunday law: The Christians worshiped their Christ, the heathen their Sun-god . . . [so they should now be combined."--H.G. Heggtveit, "illustreret Kirkehistorie," 1895, p. 202. 
"If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration [cursing] of the Jews."--Pope Sylvester, quoted by S.R.E. Humbert, "Adversus Graecorum Calumnias," in J.P. Migne, "Patrologie," p. 143. [Sylvester (A.D. 314-337) was the pope at the time Constantine 1 was Emperor.] 

"All things whatsoever that were prescribed for the [Bible] Sabbath, we have transferred them to the Lord's day, as being more authoritative and more highly regarded and first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath."--Bishop Eusebius, quoted in J.P. Migne, "Patrologie," p. 23, 1169-1172. [Eusebius of Caesarea was a high-ranking Catholic leader during Constantine's lifetime.] 

As we have already noted, excepting for the Roman and Alexandrian Christians, the majority of Christians were observing the seventh-day Sabbath at least as late as the middle of the fifth century [A.D. 450]. The Roman and Alexandrian Christians were among those converted from heathenism. They began observing Sunday as a merry religious festival in honor of the Lord's resurrection, about the latter half of the second century A.D. However, they did not try to teach that the Lord or His apostles commanded it. In fact, no ecclesiastical writer before Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century even suggested that either Christ or His apostles instituted the observance of the first day of the week.
"These Gentile Christians of Rome and Alexandria began calling the first day of the week 'the Lord's day.' This was not difficult for the pagans of the Roman Empire who were steeped in sun worship to accept, because they [the pagans] referred to their sun-god as their 'Lord.' "--EM. Chalmers, "How Sunday Came Into the Christian Church," p. 3. 
The following statement was made 100 years after Constantine's Sunday Law was passed: "Although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."--Socrates Scholasticus, quoted in "Ecclesiastical History," Book 5, chap. 22. [Written shortly after A.D. 439.] 
"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."--Hermias Sozomen, quoted in "Ecclesiastical History," vii, 19, in "A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," 2nd Series, Vol. 2, p. 390. [Written soon after AD. 415.] 
"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was wholly discontinued."--Lyman Coleman, "Ancient Christianity Exemplified" chap. 26, sec. 2, p. 527. 
"Constantine's [five Sunday Law] decrees marked the beginning of a long though intermittent series of imperial decrees in support of Sunday rest."--"A History of the Councils of the Church," Vol. 2, p. 316. 
"What began, however, as a pagan ordinance, ended as a Christian regulation; and a long series of imperial decrees, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, enjoined with increasing stringency abstinence from labor on Sunday."--Huttan Webster, "Rest Days," pp. 122-123, 210. 
Here is the first Sunday Law decree of a Christian council. It was given about 16 years after Constantine's first Sunday Law of A.D. 321: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [in the original: "sabbato"--shall not be idle on the Sabbath], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out ['anathema,'--excommunicated] from Christ."--Council of Laodicea, c. A.D. 337, Canon 29, quoted in C.J. Hefele, "A History of the Councils of the Church," Vol. 2, p. 316. 
"The keeping of the Sunday rest arose from the custom of the people and the constitution of the [Catholic] Church . . . Tertullian was probably the first to refer to a cessation of affairs on the Sun day; the Council of Laodicea issued the first counciliar legislation for that day; Constantine 1 issued the first civil legislation."--Priest Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," p. 203. [A thesis presented to the Catholic University of America.]

continued to conclusion


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

SO WHERE DO PROTESTANTS STAND ON THIS ISSUE? Based on Knowledge that is Available? How are they Holding Up under scrutiny?

CONFLICT AND DIVISION OVER THE SABBATH DAY:


PROTESTANTISM SPEAKS 

Baptist: "There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament--absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week."--Dr. E.T. Hiscox, author of the "Baptist Manual." 

Congregationalist: "It is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath . . . The Sabbath was founded on a specific, divine command. We can plead no such command for the observance of Sunday . . . There is not a single line in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday."--Dr. R.W. Dale, "The Ten Commandments," p. 106-107. 

Lutheran Free Church: "For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday then it was not easy to answer the question: Who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has had the right to do it?"--George Sverdrup, "A New Day." 

Protestant Episcopal: "The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day . . . but as we meet with no Scriptural direction for the change, we may conclude it was done by the authority of the church."--"Explanation of Catechism." 

Baptist: "The Scriptures nowhere call the first day of the week the Sabbath . . . There is no Scriptural authority for so doing, nor of course, any Scriptural obligation"--"The Watchman." 

Presbyterian: "There is no word, no hint in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. The observance of Ash Wednesday, or Lent, stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday. Into the rest of Sunday no Divine Law enters."--Canon Eyton, in "The Ten Commandments." 

Anglican: "And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day."--Isaac Williams, "Plain Sermons on the Catechism," pp. 334, 336. 

Methodist: "It is true that there is no positive command for infant baptism. Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week. Many believe that Christ changed the Sabbath. But, from His own words, we see that He came for no such purpose. Those who believe that Jesus changed the Sabbath base it only on a supposition."--Amos Binney, "Theological Compendium," pp. 180-181.

Episcopalian: "We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy, catholic, apostolic church of Christ."--Bishop Symour, "Why We Keep Sunday." 

Southern Baptist: "The sacred name of the Seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument [Exodus 20:10 quoted] . . . On this point the plain teaching of the Word has been admitted in all ages . . . Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week,--that folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh."--Joseph Judson Taylor, "The Sabbatic Question," pp. 14, 15, 16-17, 41. 

American Congregationalist: "The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament."--Dr. Lyman Abbot, in the "Christian Union," June 26, 1890. 

Christian Church: "Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath is changed, or that the Lord's Day came in the room of it."--Alexander Campbell, in 'The Reporter," October 8, 1921. 

Disciples of Christ: "There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day 'the Lord's Day.' "--Dr. O.H. Lucas, in the "Christian Oracle,"January 23, 1890. 

Baptist: "To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' discussion with His disciples, often conversing with upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false [Jewish traditional] glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject.
"Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism."--Dr. E. I. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in "New York Examiner," November 16, 1893. "

Sunday sacredness is not commanded or practiced in the Bible.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

FAIR ENOUGH?

#1.A SABBATH TIME LINE FROM EDEN TO EDEN

A chain of truth in twelve links, linking God to His people in the Holy Sabbath.

At the Creation -- 
The Sabbath given to mankind 
Genesis 2:1-3 
Exodus 31:10-11 
Before Sinai -- 
The Sabbath for 2500 years 
Exodus 16:4,26,28,30 
At Sinai -- 
The Sabbath written down 
Exodus 20:8-11 
After Sinai -- 
The Sabbath in the Old Testament 
Numbers 15:32-35 
Jeremiah 17:21-27 
(Fulfilled: Jer 52:7-15; 
2 Chr 36:19-21) 
Jesus Our Example -- 
The Sabbath of Christ 
Luke 4:16,1 Peter 2:21 
Mark 2:28, Isaiah 42:21 
Mark 1:21, 1 John 2:6 
The Disciples -- 
The Sabbath of His people 
Luke 23:56-24:1 
Paul -- 
The Sabbath of the Apostles 
Acts 17:2, 13:14, 42, 44, 16:13 
After the Time of Christ (At the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of  the world) -- 
Matthew 24:1-3, 20 
The Dark Ages and the Last Days -- 
The Sabbath in the Christian Era 
Revelation 12:17 
Last Day Restoration Predicted -- 
The Sabbath of our time 
Isaiah 58:12-14 
Revelation 12:17, 14:12 
Heaven and the New Earth -- 
The Sabbath for eternity 
Revelation 22:14 
Isaiah 66:22-23 
Your Special Day with God -- 
The Sabbath founded upon Scripture 
Exodus 31:13,17 
Isaiah 56:2,4,6 
Ezekiel 20:12,20 
All through the Bible, we find much information about the precious Bible Sabbath. And this is as we would expect, for the Sabbath is the connecting link between man and his God. 
Can we do any better than to do the best? And the best is given us in the pages of holy Scripture. There we find God's plan for our lives. And it is a wonderful plan.
Just now, become a link in God's Sabbath time line; For it reaches to eternity
 A SUNDAY TIME LINE FROM EDEN TO EDEN  
...........................................................................................................................

#2. A chain of facts in twelve links disproving a man-made error--the Sunday-sacredness error.

At the Creation -- 
Sunday sacredness not known 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
Before Sinai -- 
Sunday sacredness never found 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
At Sinai -- 
Sunday sacredness totally missing 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
After Sinai -- 
Sunday sacredness completely absent 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
Jesus Our Example -- 
Sunday sacredness totally ignored 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
The Disciples -- 
Sunday sacredness not mentioned 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
Paul -- 
Sunday sacredness never spoken of 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
After the time of Christ (At the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world) -- 
Sunday sacredness entirely missing 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
The Dark Ages -- 
Sunday sacredness--such an error predicted! 
Daniel 7:25, 8:10-12 
Revelation 13:6-7 
Revelation 17:5-6 
Last Days -- 
Sunday sacredness--No, but return to Bible Sabbath predicted 
Isaiah 58:12-14 
Revelation 12:17, 14:12 
Heaven and the New Earth -- 
Sunday sacredness totally missing 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
Your Special Day with God -- 
Sunday sacredness--nowhere found in Scripture 
Bible texts vindicating Sunday: None 
All through the Bible we find absolutely nothing said about Sunday sacredness. 
There is no text anywhere in Scripture that tells us that Sunday is holy unto the Lord, or that it has become the new sabbath. 

Now there is a level playing field on something signifiicant in the Scriptures.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

Mamita said:


> now these people feel justified to be praying to that biblical figure, but that is praying to someone other than God, same thing for the saints, and same thing for Jesus the flesh (that had a face, hair, eyes different than anythng u can see around).
> that's the only thing u can't deny is that prayers are being sent to some who are not God by being on ur knees in front of a paiting or a statue.
> 
> worship : a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
> b. The *ceremonies*, *prayers*, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.





I POSTED DOCUMENTATION ON Catholic Teaching and Protestant Teaching. I thought that it would be helpful to PROTESTANTS, TO LEARN ABOUT CATHOLICS AND ABOUT THEMSELVES.  I know that it has become religiously politically correct to say we are all Christian....  we basically believe the same things.....love is all that matters...but as believers....

Are we really all on the same page here?


1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him"

Ephesians 4: "3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is ONE BODY, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

'One Lord, ONE FAITH , One Baptism..."...this is really open for question.

Question:  Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they agree?"

Well, if you read all of the documentation, you will know what you do and do not agree on for sure.


----------



## Mamita (Jun 1, 2010)

thank you, I am an ex catholic, my whole family is still catholic, when i converted to Holiness i did my research and i know first hand what catholics think and do, i have both devoted and less devoted catholics in my family...so i know about Catholics and myself lol


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 1, 2010)

Mamita said:


> thank you, I am an ex catholic, my whole family is still catholic, when i converted to Holiness i did my research and i know first hand what catholics think and do, i have both devoted and less devoted catholics in my family...so i know about Catholics and myself lol



I knew you were aware. So many are not, and Protestants, particulary do not get where Catholics are coming from, and just assume that we are under one big 'Christian umbrella' of FAITH AND UNITY, and walking around uninformed thinking and saying 'What are you guys doing?  I don't get how you can justify images ...while Catholics say: "Why are you persecuting me?...criticizing me?...We have our own traditions....period!  we are different...separate!"


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (Jun 1, 2010)

AfriPrincess411 said:


> It's not so mcuh about worshipping the image, but the image becoming a distraction. Why do we as worshippers need images at all when we have His Word?


 How is it a distraction?


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (Jun 1, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> It is that, but mostly that I feel some kind of way worshipping an image that is most likely inaccurate. No one knows what He looks like, and I *feel* that the reason why we don't know exactly how He looks and why we shouldn't have an image in mind is that it does not matter in terms with your walk with Him.


 If I recall correctly, there is scripture that describes his appearance.  Not down to the exact details, but enough to get a general idea.

The bottom line is that I see having a picture of Him as being no different from people who have photos displayed of someone they love.  And because people aren't seen as worshipping the people in those photos, I don't see why this would be categorized differently.


----------



## Mamita (Jun 1, 2010)

nathansgirl1908 said:


> If I recall correctly, there is scripture that describes his appearance.  Not down to the exact details, but enough to get a general idea.
> 
> The bottom line is that I see having a picture of Him as being no different from people who have photos displayed of someone they love.  And because people aren't seen as worshipping the people in those photos, I don't see why this would be categorized differently.



We don't pray to those people we love cause thye can do nothing for us lol
Now if i asked you to paint for me the likeness of my grandfather that you've never seen. You're gonna paint him as you IMAGINE him, in the end you'll show me a paiting of a guy who's a mix between your uncle, your father and your grandfather. But that's not who i asked for. yet it still represents people that exist.
so all these representations of Jesus are actual people most probably but not him at all, but everybody accepts it, that big lie everybody is ok with
do you have ONE picture of Jesus where he has short black hair? cause he preached against long hair for men so i doubt he preached against something he did himself
or where he was ugly? cause it said there was no desire for him
or where he was tanned? north africa is hecka sunny lol
is there such an image somewhere?
even if there is it will be still a lie, like u'll show me ur idea of my grandfather, ill say that's not him, why you put his name under ur paiting?


----------



## azuquita_morena (Jun 1, 2010)

Again I understand somewhat you are saying, but I don't think you can really compare a picture of a loved one (aka human being) vs a image of God/Jesus (the most Holy of holy entities). I treat this as something that is *too* scared to even have a graven image. To me, it's about respect for the sacredness, and not even putting God on the level as a pagan idol.

And yes there is a description, but it is definitely not enough to get an accurate vision of what He really looked like. How can there be accurate images with a vague description?

I really wish I could articulate this better, I do believe that there are people who really do, whether inadvertently or not, are worshipping those holy images. 

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?



nathansgirl1908 said:


> If I recall correctly, there is scripture that describes his appearance. Not down to the exact details, but enough to get a general idea.
> 
> The bottom line is that I see having a picture of Him as being no different from people who have photos displayed of someone they love. And because people aren't seen as worshipping the people in those photos, I don't see why this would be categorized differently.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (Jun 1, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> Again I understand somewhat you are saying, but I don't think you can really compare a picture of a loved one (aka human being) vs a image of God/Jesus (the most Holy of holy entities). I treat this as something that is *too* scared to even have a graven image. To me, it's about respect for the sacredness, and not even putting God on the level as a pagan idol.
> 
> And yes there is a description, but it is definitely not enough to get an accurate vision of what He really looked like. How can there be accurate images with a vague description?
> 
> ...


 
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.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (Jun 1, 2010)

Mamita said:


> We don't pray to those people we love cause thye can do nothing for us lol
> Now if i asked you to paint for me the likeness of my grandfather that you've never seen. You're gonna paint him as you IMAGINE him, in the end you'll show me a paiting of a guy who's a mix between your uncle, your father and your grandfather. But that's not who i asked for. yet it still represents people that exist.
> so all these representations of Jesus are actual people most probably but not him at all, but everybody accepts it, that big lie everybody is ok with
> do you have ONE picture of Jesus where he has short black hair? cause he preached against long hair for men so i doubt he preached against something he did himself
> ...


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


----------



## Guitarhero (Jun 1, 2010)

Not just catholic, there are 20+ others I can name who partake in use of religious images and they will back it up by scripture.  It's so not a "catholic" thing.   My issue is that some kinds of christians are more accepted in the CF and other types are not.  If I read a non-catholic  opinion on an issue, I'm not going to condemn it for it's non-"universal" perspective and I'm not going to expect they give mine.  Afterall, they can only give the one they are most familiar with and since we're all adults, we should have already comprehended this.  It's a little short-sighted to expect anything else.  It's beyond rude to suggest that one is superior over another and that we need to learn from another one about ourselves when we have ourselves to learn about ourselves from...plus 2,000 years of history and nearly 4,000 years of Judaism, our older brother. erplexed But in the same time, one should not be ashamed to give their side at all.  Let's be mindful and care of accusing who is not "christian." Please.

There is only one body of Christ.  We are all expressing it differently.  Like prayer, there are some who believe that others in heaven can intercede for us here.  There are those who believe that we can pray for souls.  There are others who read a literal translation of the bible.  There are others who implement the Old Testament laws into their daily christianity.  It's all differing perspectives.  But when we start claiming that people are "pagan" or that they are part of some "whore of Babylon," we are stepping into the realm of insult.  It's not necessary and it's divisive.  We can discuss with mutual respect.  But please don't expect someone to give your perpective when only you have it.


----------



## azuquita_morena (Jun 1, 2010)

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*.




nathansgirl1908 said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


----------



## Guitarhero (Jun 1, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2010)

puro_tumbao said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2010)

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. 





nathansgirl1908 said:


> 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.
> ...


----------



## Prudent1 (Jun 1, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

nathansgirl1908 said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2010)

Mamita said:


> 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
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

> 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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

Mahalialee4 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



   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 (Jun 2, 2010)

Mamita said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 2, 2010)

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 (Jun 3, 2010)

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.





AfriPrincess411 said:


> 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.
> ...


----------



## Crown (Jun 3, 2010)

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 (Jun 3, 2010)

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 (Jun 3, 2010)

Crown said:


> 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 .
> ...


 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 (Jun 3, 2010)

@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




Mahalialee4 said:


> *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 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mahalialee4 said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mahalialee4 said:


> 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.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 3, 2010)

huxtable said:


> 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.



You are welcome. But woe is me if I did not speak up when He wanted me to.



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

Most people think that God is only going to "look at their heart". The Father is having the trumpet of warning sounded all around the world. Some have allowed the 'fear of man' to silence them. How can I love my people and not sound out when God says: "this time, speak!" Pray for me.

EZEKIAL 33:
1" Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: 3If when he SEETH the sword come upon the land, he BLOW the trumpet, and WARN the people; 4Then WHOSOEVER HEARETH THE SOUND OF THE TRUMPET, AND TAKETH NOT WARNING; if the sword come, and take him away, HIS BLOOD SHALL BE UPON HIS OWN HEAD. 5He heard the sound of the trumpet, and TOOK NOT WARNING; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. 6But IF THE WATCHMAN SEE THE SWORD COME, AND BLOW NOT THE TRUMPET, AND THE PEOPLE BE NOT WARNED; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but HIS BLOOD WILL I REQUIRE AT THE WATCHMAN'S HAND. 
7So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. 8When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; BUT HIS BLOOD WILL I REQUIRE AT THINE HAND. 9Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked OF HIS WAY to turn from it; if he DO NOT TURN FROM HIS WAY, he shall die in his iniquity; but THOU HAS DELIVERED THY SOUL. 

10Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how SHOULD we then live? 

11Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; 
but that the wicked TURN FROM HIS WAY and live: turn ye, turn ye FROM YOUR EVIL WAYS; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 

12Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS SHALL NOT DELIVER HIM IN THE DAY OF HIS TRANSGRESSION: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall THE RIGHTEOUS be able to live FOR HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS in THE DAY THAT HE SINNETH. 13When I shall say to the RIGHTEOUS, that he shall surely live; IF HE TRUST IN HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, and COMMIT INIQUITY, ALL HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS shall NOT BE REMEMBERED; but FOR HIS INIQUITY THAT HE HATH COMMITTED he shall die for it. 14Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. 

17Yet THE CHILDREN OF THY PEOPLE SAY, The WAY OF THE LORD IS NOT EQUAL: but as for them, THEIR WAY IS NOT EQUAL. 18When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth INIQUITY, he shall even die thereby. 19But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. 20YET YE SAY, THE WAY OF THE LORD IS NOT EQUAL. O ye house of Israel, I WILL JUDGE  YOU  EVERYONE AFTER HIS WAYS. "

So Yes. It is that serious. To Him.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 3, 2010)

Crown said:


> 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?
> ...



I appreciate what you are saying. I know you mean well and I do not overlook that. No person is an island. I appreciate the body. As for edification, not all will 'feel edified' if it is something that they personally are not tuned to. Christ said: "Let him that hath an ear, hear", to His messages. But He fulfilled His assignment. Not all liked what he said. Many wanted to kill him. And finally some did.  But His Words have not lost their power. My goal is to lift up Christ and point men to Him and His ways. That may involve stepping on the 'spiritual' toes of some men.

There are times, when there is a deeper reason and responsibility. In this case if it was just about me, I would have kept silent and not posted the references. That way, I could have avoided anyone being offended or annoyed with the length and quantity of the material. But, it was not about me and what I wanted and what was best for me in the eyes of man. It boiled down to a choice: Please 'God' or 'man'. As I said, I have completed this assignment because the Scriptural principles stressed throughout my posts, throughout the forum, "who will you believe, whom will you serve"..."whom will you obey"...stand as a witness. That is my responsibility... That is my testimony... To bear witness to Christ. Remember.. "We overcome by the blood of the Lamb and 'by our testimony".

Revelation 12:11 "They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by ...the word of their testimony;     they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. ..". 

Revelation 12: "17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with   the remnant of her seed,    which keep the commandments of God, and    have the testimony of Jesus Christ."


Whether they are 'hearing or not', is not my responsibilty...speaking up when He leads me to, is. Being imperfect, and in need of his daily cleansing, just like everyone in the body of Christ, I try to walk in repentence and obedience, daily. He died for me. No one else did.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mahalialee4 said:


> That may involve stepping on the 'spiritual' toes of some men.



This seems to be an area of confusion that comes up a lot.  Just because someone does not agree with your stance, or may think that you went overboard on how much you posted, it does not mean that you are stepping on spiritual toes.  That amount of information is overwhelming and some of it was difficult to follow from the way it was posted.  In addition, there is no real way of knowing the authenticity of those postings.  They are not the definitive answer to everything.



> Whether they are 'hearing or not', is not my responsibilty...speaking up when He leads me to, is. Being imperfect, and in need of his daily cleansing, just like everyone in the body of Christ, I try to walk in repentence and obedience, daily. He died for me. No one else did.


I definitely understand it when God commands or leads someone to do something.  However I also know that sometimes we do things and claim that God is leading us to do it when really it is our own passion and zealous spirit leading us to do it.  Would God want someone to post an overwhelming amount of information that is not exactly clear?  From my personal experiences, I don't think so.    Not to mention that at some point, from my perspective, the postings were less about being led by God, and more about showing the vast amount of information you had available to post.  And when we are being led by god, it is never about us, but all about Him.


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 3, 2010)

nathansgirl1908 said:


> This seems to be an area of confusion that comes up a lot.  Just because someone does not agree with your stance, or may think that you went overboard on how much you posted, it does not mean that you are stepping on spiritual toes.  That amount of information is overwhelming and some of it was difficult to follow from the way it was posted.  In addition, there is no real way of knowing the authenticity of those postings.  They are not the definitive answer to everything.
> 
> 
> I definitely understand it when God commands or leads someone to do something.  However I also know that sometimes we do things and claim that God is leading us to do it when really it is our own passion and zealous spirit leading us to do it.  Would God want someone to post an overwhelming amount of information that is not exactly clear?  From my personal experiences, I don't think so.    Not to mention that at some point, from my perspective, the postings were less about being led by God, and more about showing the vast amount of information you had available to post.  And when we are being led by god, it is never about us, but all about Him.



You, like everyone else are entitled to your opinion on my motives.

As for amounts of information:  God had a whole inspired BOOK written, for you and me..referred to by many as the Old and New Testament...by a variety of many writers, laid out in over 66 scrolls, referred to in Scripture as 'books'. Many find that amount of information overwhelming to get through and comprehend. So you would have to ask God, "What is too much information?"


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (Jun 3, 2010)

Mahalialee4 said:


> So Yes. It is that serious. To Him.



My point in saying that it wasn't that serious, is that people are getting tangled up over minute issues when there are much bigger issues going on to deal with in the spiritual realm.  Yes, people should not worship an image.  But if someone wants to have a picture of God in their house, as long as they don't worship the actual picture itself, I don't see the point in all the hoopla.  

And once you have told people your thoughts, if you feel they aren't receiving it, then you are supposed to keep it moving and "shake the dust off your feet."


----------



## Mahalialee4 (Jun 4, 2010)

nathansgirl1908 said:


> My point in saying that it wasn't that serious, is that people are getting tangled up over minute issues when there are much bigger issues going on to deal with in the spiritual realm.  Yes, people should not worship an image.  But if someone wants to have a picture of God in their house, as long as they don't worship the actual picture itself, I don't see the point in all the hoopla.
> 
> And once you have told people your thoughts, if you feel they aren't receiving it, then you are supposed to keep it moving and "shake the dust off your feet."






Nathan's Girl:
This is Especially For You.   Because God loves you, consider all that is said. 

Exodus 34:6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth”;
2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

*****This is the Scripture you referred to:  Matthew: 10:14 “And WHOSOEVER SHALL NOT RECEIVE YOU, NOR HEAR YOUR WORDS,    ‘WHEN ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” (I WILL COMMENT AT THE END)

DO YOU THINK THAT GOD KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING AND TO WHOM HE IS SENDING HIS WORD? 
Ezekial 2:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.                                                                          Ezekial 2:4 "I am sending you to them who are stubborn and obstinate children, and you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD.'
Ezekiel 3:7 yet the house of Israel WILL NOT BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO YOU,  SINCE THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO LISTEN TO ME. Surely the whole house of Israel is STUBBORN AND OBSTINATE.                                                                                                          Ezekiel 20:18 "I said to their children in the wilderness, 'DO NOT WALK IN THE STATUTES OF YOUR FATHERS OR KEEP THEIR ORDINANCES OR DEFILE YOURSELVES WITH THEIR IDOLS.    Ezekiel 20:30 "Therefore, say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and play the harlot after their detestable things?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Isaiah 55:6  “Seek ye the LORD WHILE HE MAY BE FOUND, call ye upon him WHILE HE IS NEAR: 7Let the wicked forsake HIS WAY, and the unrighteous man HIS THOUGHTS: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8For MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS,  NEITHER ARE YOUR WAYS MY WAYS; saith the LORD.” 
9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are MY WAYS HIGHER THAN YOUR WAYS , and MY THOUGHTS THAN YOUR THOUGHTS.
Romans 10:21 But as for Israel He says, "ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE."
Isaiah 65:2 "I have spread out My hands ALL DAY LONG to a rebellious people, Who WALK IN THE WAY WHICH IS NOT GOOD,   FOLLOWING THEIR OWN THOUGHTS,”
2 Chronicles 36:15 And the Lord, the God of their fathers, sent word to them by his servants, sending EARLY AND FREQUENTLY  because he had PITY ON HIS PEOPLE and ON HIS LIVING SPACE;

Jeremiah 25:3 "From the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, even to this day, these TWENTY THREE YEARS the word of the LORD has come to me, and I have spoken to you AGAIN AND AGAIN, but  YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED. 
Proverbs 1:24 24Because I HAVE CALLED, AND YE REFUSED; I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HAND,, and NO MAN REGARDED; 25But ye have SET AT NOUGHT ALL MY COUNSEL, and WOULD NONE OF MY REPROOF
 26I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; 27When YOUR FEAR COMETH, as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when DISTRESS AND ANGQUISH. 28THEN SHALL THEY CALL UPON ME,, BUT I WILL NOT ANSWER; THEY SHALL SEEK ME EARLY, BUT THEY SHALL NOT FIND ME:
 29For that THEY HATED KNOWLEDGE, and DID NOT CHOOSE  THE FEAR OF THE LORD: 30 THEY WOULD NONE OF MY COUNSEL:  THEY DESPISED ALL MY REPROOF. 31 THEREFORE SHALL THEY EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THEIR OWN WAY, , and be filled with their own devices. 32For THE TURNING AWAY OF THE SIMPLE SHALL SLAY THEM, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. 

Ecclesiastes 8:11 “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”
Ezekiel 7:26 Disaster will come upon disaster and rumor will be added to rumor; then they will seek a vision from a prophet, but the law will be lost from the priest and counsel from the elders.
Psalm 74:9 We do not see our signs; There is no longer any prophet, Nor is there any among us who knows how long.
Ezekial 7:26 “Trouble shall come upon trouble, and rumour upon rumour, and they shall seek a vision of the prophet, and the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients.”


Ecclesiastes 8:11 “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” 
Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

This is the Scripture you referred to:  Matthew: 10:14 “And WHOSOEVER SHALL NOT RECEIVE YOU, NOR HEAR YOUR WORDS,    ‘WHEN YE DEPART OUT OF THAT HOUSE OR CITY,   shake off the dust of your feet.”

This is the part, you also have to remember: 10” And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place …”
TILL YE DEPART…now as you see clearly stated in my posts… that I completed what I had to share with the Ladies in this thread, why are you wanting to continue a debate re: hat has already been totally clarified and continuing to pursue something that is 'so much hoopla to you?'


God allows us to choose, choose what we want and have our own way. I shared what I was supposed to share, as MANY TIMES and AS MANY PLACES.  If you do not want to hear, maybe God has someone is mind who will, and not consider the information a burden. Now, since I have already stated that I HAVE COMPLETED what was required,   you may consider that I have shaken the dust off of my feet and leave your choices to you.  But it was done in God’s time, not our time. That is the WAY HE WORKS.

Now, it would be good to let me leave the matter  where it was and is. I have nothing more to add to you or anything that I have said here.


----------



## nathansgirl1908 (Jun 4, 2010)

Mahalialee4 said:


> This is Especially For You.   Because God loves you.



I am always amazed at how people say this, but it sounds like condemnation and chastisement when they say it.  I will be honest, I don't think your motive is pure in saying this.  It reeks of superiority.  I am very well aware of God's love.  I don't need you to tell me that He loves me.  




> This is the Scripture you referred to:  Matthew: 10:14 “And WHOSOEVER SHALL NOT RECEIVE YOU, NOR HEAR YOUR WORDS,    ‘WHEN YE DEPART OUT OF THAT HOUSE OR CITY,   shake off the dust of your feet.”
> 
> This is the part, you also have to remember: 10” And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place …”



And yet again you posted a vast amount of scripture in here.  As a result your post was difficult to read and follow.  Not to mention that I have a Bible and can read my scripture.  Not sure why you have to cut and paste whole passages.  I'm not even sure where you were trying to go with it.  




> TILL YE DEPART…now as you see clearly stated in my posts… that I completed what I had to share with the Ladies in this thread, why are you wanting to debate what has already been totally clarified.


Nothing has been clarified.  You have to understand that simply because YOU say that God led you to write this stuff, it doesn't mean that we have to accept what you say as the definitive answer.  I am choosing to walk my own walk, and it works for me.  I firmly believe that it is okay to have those images.  I know people who have ALWAYS had pictures of God in their house.  All of them are about the kingdom business and you can see God's blessing and presence in their lives.  If these people were worshiping graven images as you accuse, I don't think for one minute they would be as blessed or as secure as they are in their spiritual walk because God doesn't play that.  at ALL.  



> God allows us to choose, choose what we want and have our own way. I shared what I was supposed to share, as MANY TIMES and AS MANY PLACES.  If you do not want to hear, maybe God has someone is mind who will, and not consider the information a burden. Now, since I have already stated that I HAVE COMPLETED what was required,   you may consider that I have shaken the dust off of my feet and leave your choices to you.  But it was done in God’s time, not our time. That is the WAY HE WORKS.
> 
> Now, it would be good to let me leave the matter  where it was and is. I have nothing more to add to you or anything that I have said here.



I think this is best because you have an attitude that you are the only one who is hearing from the Lord on this subject.


----------



## Guitarhero (Jun 4, 2010)

I just wish to say that my previous reactions were from pain of being accused of following something false.  This is the christianity I chose.  It makes perfect sense and I see the connections between Judaism and it.  I don't expect others to support it but I do expect respect and that goes for everyone in my circle.  I give them respect, they should afford me the same.

My family is also very Jewish and/or Jewishly descended and were persecuted, having their identity stripped and spat upon.  So, walking this walk is a very difficult struggle.  Seeing another Black person do this and claiming it is biblical is beyond comprehension (OT).  When I read that tirade against who was considered legitimate Jews and not, I was angry.  When I explained why I have icons, it wasn't to make anyone believe, it was an explanation on why, backed with scripture - and then the negativity as though we are paganistic idiots.  

All we have to do is put ourselves in another's shoes.  If we are honest about this walk with the Lord, it should not be hard to understand.  I pray that my reasons for responding and explaining are accepted as sincere and comprehended.  Jesus and His whole family, friends, disciples, all Jewish and they weren't all Black.  The church is ancient and we ALL belonged to it, one body.  Sometimes, we need to step outside ourselves to see the humanity God gave us rather than attempting to to heap any kinds of glories upon ourselves ("they're not the true Jews but we are") that simply are not ours to embellish ourselves with.  It's all about respect.  That's the bible in a nutshell...just do to others like you wish others would do to you.  Peace and love, shalom b' ahava.  I hope we can all be true friends and uplift one another.


----------



## Galadriel (Jun 4, 2010)

Also consider that God instructed images of angels (seraphim) to be placed at the corners of the tabernacle--the seat upon which He literally was present. And let's not forget the bronze serpent that God instructed Moses to make so that those Israelites who were bitten and fallen ill would look upon the bronze serpent and be healed.

Both of these have something in common--they are used in the New Testament later as references, symbols, or precursors to Christ. Christ is the tabernacle , the Holy of Holies which was destroyed and then resurrected in three days. Like the bronze serpent, he was lifted up (crucifixion) and as a result brought healing/salvation. 

Images aren't bad. God Himself used them. They're meant to point to certain truths and understandings. It's only a bad thing when you put an image in place of God or over God, like how some people worship money or "mammon" over worshiping God.


----------

