- This topic has 1 reply, 6 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by Anonymous.
October 17, 2008 at 12:57 am #8918AnonymousInactive
Paul spoke against human attempts to define in human terms in Athens, too. See the eniter chapter 17 of Acts and check whether I use it out of context.
Acts 17: 29 – 30: Thereofre since we are God’s offspring, we should not hink that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone – an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by rasing him from the dead.”
Paul said we must even think of reproducing God’s images, using human skills.
Remember Michealongelo’s picture, where God the Father and Adam were discribed as two conversationers. How God the Father was described as riding some clouds, according to my memory. It was painted in the dome of a Roman Catholic Church.
What we beget is identical to us.
What we creat is inferior to us.
We should never even indirectly encourage our fellow Chirstians to have the wrong conceptions of God, because of the imperfect images – and all Catholic images are too imperfect to point out to God, by their substances, alone.October 17, 2008 at 3:37 am #8919AnonymousInactive
[quote:nbxlaodd]The reproduction of the images of Christ were started when Christians in Rome were affected by Roman cultures, which used sculptrues to represent their pagan gods. I heard this from my catholic world religion teacher.[/quote:nbxlaodd]
St. Paul used the Pagan altar in Athens (Acts 17:22-34) as a teaching device to show the pagans the truth of Christ. So any adoption of Pagan images to teach Christian truths has a basis in Apostolic teaching. He did not condemn the use of statues per se, simply that none of the idols could compare with God. Trying to argue that the use, or reuse of formerly pagan statues by the Early Church is evidence that the Catholic Church abandoned God’s law just does not hold water. I could use your argument and simply state that as you cannot describe all the atributes of God, and His absolute perfection, you neigher know Him nor should speak of Him.
Your either heard your world religion teacher incorrectly or he did not get the story quite correctly. What did happen in the Early Church is as Chrisitanity was legalized and the old Temples and Basilicae (plural for Basilica) where converted into Christian Churches, the old statues where recycled, or re-named for Christian Saints, and God. But once again they where not worshiped as was the Golden Calf. I’ll get back to the Calf in a minute. Prior to the Christianization of pagan sculpture, we find in the ancient meeting places of the Early Christians depictions of Jesus as the Good Shepheard, and in other depictions of Him. We also see other depictions of God, but once again they are not themselves worshiped, but used to inspire the soul to higher concepts of God.
I’ll add this in a separate section because the evidence is still being examined in Rihab Jordan where a recently discovered Church dating from Circa 33-70 AD is being excavated. What the actual mosaics on the floors will reveal we have yet to see. The fact may be that even if the newly discovered Church has Christian roots from just after the Crucifixion and triumph over death by Jesus, the mosaics may be of later date, and would have little bearing in our discussion.
Back to the golden Calf. You are somewhat correct that in your statement about Aaron calling for a solemnity of the Lord. However you only come half way to the truth. Human Beings from the Fall in the garden have been fickle and half hearted when it comes to living up to our end of the various covenants made between Noah, Abraham, Moses and God. What Aaron did wrong was to have copied the practices of the pagans not simply in the crafting of a statue that was worshipped, but he also did as the Pagans did, he equated the One and Only God with the local pagan gods. Aaron led the Children of Israel into the error of accepting that one religion is as good as the next. It was not as your novel ideas suppose that the golden calf was an inaccurate depiction of the One True God, but that it was just as good, and any god was just as good as the One God.
[quote:nbxlaodd]Remember Michealongelo’s picture, where God the Father and Adam were discribed as two conversationers. How God the Father was described as riding some clouds, according to my memory. It was painted in the dome of a Roman Catholic Church.[/quote:nbxlaodd]
You are thinking of the ceiling of the Sixtine, (also called the Sistine) Chapel in the Vatican. The Bible also speaks of Adam “walking” with God. Images be they in word or art describe to us the various aspects of God. Until we see Him, “Face to Face” we will not know all His glory. To use that as an excuse to not inspire in our hearts and minds a greaterdesire to know Him is a very lame excuse to attack something that has come down to us from the days of the Apostles.
[quote:nbxlaodd]What we beget is identical to us.
What we creat is inferior to us.
We should never even indirectly encourage our fellow Chirstians to have the wrong conceptions of God, because of the imperfect images – and all Catholic images are too imperfect to point out to God, by their substances, alone.[/quote:nbxlaodd]
I find it hard to believe that you came up with this, strange and upsurd statement yourself. Please identify where it came from, as it has little bearing on what the Bible teaches us in the context of the whole.October 17, 2008 at 11:56 pm #8920AnonymousInactive
Before starting, you also accepted that Aron used the golden calf as the wrong representation of God. I am glad with our progress. Let the Truth proclaim!
Think of why Father has proclaimed He has begotten his Son, not created his Son.
I was surprised that you called my statement was absurd, when my theology textbook in a Catholic school for highschool students teaches us to make distintion between begetting and creating to understand the identity of Christ as a devine God. I was surprised that you were new to this.
I recognized my lack of historical proof of relating Catholic images to Roman worship through statue. I will be careful for that. Please, forgive me in the name of Son.
The word, Noah walked with God, was the language of figure.
If you support your arument with that, you must say you can have the mind picture of the Father having legs, which must be blasphemous.
Let me digress a little bit. I heard there was a Methodist hymn, which discribed God as femine. You could even make an idol of yourself in the perception of written words.
We must never do that, don’t you agree with me?
Idols can be also money, and academic success, ets. Then, let me continue on our subject.
God said, himself, agaisnt using the visible idols in Excodud 20 : 4. But, why did he make specific statements about the visible images, only, when the written words can be used as dangerously as possible – notice I am not denying the posbility of using written laguage to make a distorting represention of God, which is also an idol.
There is a huge difference between the visualization of God and the written descrption of God, however.
Psalm 23 describes The Lord as the Shepherd. When I think of Jesus Christ, I have the image of Christ in my head as the Shepherd. Every scripture is God-breathed, and Psalm 23 also funtioned as the prophecy, which showed the comming Messiah would be a good shepherd. Yes, when I see Psalm 23, I have the image of God as the Shepherd. And, I know I am not serving an idol, having the image of Christ as the Shepherd in my mind. Are you with me, so far?
However, when that is going through my mind, my will still has soverinty over my imagination. And I can never solidfy the image of the Shepherd in my brain. It is armorphos cloud, for you can have the exactly same thought, again. I can never finish visualizing the Shephered, for ever. If it you say it is an idol – I believe you won’t- it is an idol that can never be built at all.
However, if you solidfy the image in your mind outwardly – say you make the statue of your visual imagination of the Shepherd, you shall see imediately the result is different from your original perception and has the different quality from what you imagined. In your imagination. you thought of the Good Shepherd gently caring for his sheep, which is us. However, the solidfied image is merely the dead and cold stone. Once it is solidified, none who sees the image can not perceive it with the soevernty of his will over the imagination. He sees the image as it is, for it is being represented as a destined form.
Moreover, It is almost impossible for you to creat anything as you have planned in your mind. Have you ever been not disappointed after you finish your picture, thinking it is too inferior to what your imagination has suggested?
You can never never avoid spreding the wrong (also evil) represention of God through the solidifided image, even though it is more sophisticated than Aron’s golden calf.
Please let me see a picture free of this sin. It seems you advocate the use of human images to point out God seriously. I believe you know a lot of them. Let me have any picture of God, which does not encourage me to have the wrong solidfided image of God. Let me have one, and I shall not object to you.
Also, please give me one example from the Bible times, the era of the New and Old Testaments, which shows that Jews used the solidfied visual images to point out to God in ther worship, not cherubs or angels, please….
If not, would you mind explaining me why Jews were not clever enough to use such an effective mean to remind its people of One True God? Please, let me have the answer about this point. I really beseech you to answer this, especially.
About your criticism of my using some certain verses from Acts, I think you are intelligent enough to see that Paul is literally dicouraging Greeks to visualize God outwardly, Acts 17: 29… we should not think that the divine being is Like gold or silver or stone – an image made by man’s design and skill (NIV).
Catholic statues can never point out to God, for it has no likeness of God at all.
Even with the context, my usage of the Scriprture was resonable. If I am wrong, let me know. If I am right, what is your reason to deny what is obvious?
Remember, debate for the sake of debate is meaningless.
Ignorance comes from two sources, first deception and, second, self-deception. In the second case, none of us can justify it. If I am wrong and still insisting arrogantly, I am attacking the true church of God in vain, risking self-deception. If I am so. please condemn me so that I can know the Truth and the Truth shall set me free from my wrong.
But,If I am right… well… you know the answer for yourself.
Let us be truthful to God.
Above all, let me see any example that Jews used the visual image to point out or to represent God. Remember, there were many Jews, who knew sculptures were trully effective, because they were sometimes tempted by them, themselves! Let me know why Jews were ignorant that specifically for that point. If you are right, this can be considered both as the mystery and the mistake of Jews, who were not deligent enough to use their artistic means to do this.
Please condemn me strongly, if I am wrong so that I cannot sin against a true church.
What we beget is identical to us.
What we creat is inferior to us.
I am repeating this absurd statement again.
I was a Catholic myself. I defended statues, myself. I am now merely follower of Jesus Christ, without supporting any specific denomination. I always struggle to know the Truth truly with the help of Holy Spirit, which shows its presence in human lives and scriptures.October 18, 2008 at 12:15 am #8921AnonymousInactive
Remeber it was God, himself, who said I am who I am.
He did not give even a slight chance to Moses to define God in human terms solidly.
Remember, when you call me Andrew I answer to you, for I am really Andrew. God gave many nick names to us, Love, Good Shepherd, Rock, and Truth.
I can say God is Love as John did in the first letter of John.
But, I can never say Love is God. To do so, I must kill the personality of God. I can never say Good Shepherd is God. If I do so, I am deliberately forgetting that it is God’s divine character that makes him Good Shepherd.
Also, I can never say Truth is God, for Truth is the character of God, and without God thre is no Truth (This is what Ghandid did – He said he did not say God was his Truth, but his Truth was God)…
Let us serve the Truth.October 18, 2008 at 12:55 am #8922AnonymousInactive
I think you are so off base in so many areas that it is hard to comment. I find your interpretation of the Scriptures to be so faulty that all I can do is just shake my head, and pray for you, and those who wrote and preached the false Gospel that you seem to be following. By trying to hammer one or two “Proof Texts” into the mold you want them to fit, and adding other texts plucked out of sources that you not only do not identify, but once again do not follow any logical premise you make God and His word into something that id so distorted, and out of place that it no longer resembles what it is. You come here not to discuss, share or learn, but to belittle, condemn and insult others with your your sects novel ideas.October 18, 2008 at 11:36 am #8923AnonymousInactive
Let us end our discusson here, before we hurt each other.
I will accept your prayer gratefully.
But, if possible, please let me know why Jews did not officially use statues to point out God in the times of the Old Testament. Truth is objective and exclusive. Either I am right and your are wrong, or I am wrong and you are right. We have not only intellectual discusson, but also moral discussion to know who is really distorting Truth.
I tell you what. You say I did not come to discuss, shareor learn, but to belittle, condemn and insult…. Well, I say your beginning introduction at the first page… “Let us forget… such and such…” What was your purpose to write it, then, Weren’t you not indirectly attacking Protestan bigotry who attacked your images as the proof of paganism?
Oneday, I had a discussion with an Indian, who believed in self-god. When I talked about the exclusive nature of Truth, he said, “Then, do you think it is right for you to impose your Truth?”
Well, I laughed inwardly. He did not know that it would not be me, who would impose my Truth on him, but my Truth would impose on his falses naturally, for no man could be a god to himself. You talked about condeming. But In religious discussions, the result inevitably condemns someone.
Suppose you hope some of your Muslim friends to be converted to Christianity. To claim Jesus Christ is God incarnate, you must somehow condemn Mohamad for being the liar who described Jesus merely as a pophet, not giving him due honor. You can probably start your discussion with them intellectually, but you can never let them know the Truth unless you however lovingly and patiently tell them to reject the false, that is contradictory to the Truth, for man cannot serve both masters.
The war of intellect is the shade of the war of morality. The war of morality is the shade of the war of spirit. If you and other religious partakers have discussions concerning the true core of the matter, you shall see it is inevitable that someone will feel condemned somehow as much as one’s acceptance of Christ is impossible before repentance.
Someone can deny, by his free will, the statement of Christ, “I am the only Way. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
But, he can never say that Jesus Christ did not say that.
Good bye.October 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm #8924AnonymousInactive
Cha or Andrew or whataver your name is. It is not discussion or debate that I am shying away from, it is the manner in which you post that makes it impossible to discuss or debate here. Your postings are like a shotgun blast, all over the place. I can ramble, but your posts just accumulate various subjects in what appears to be a garbled mix, and I cannot make any sense of them. I don’t know if the problem is possibly that you don’t use english as your first language, or if the problem is with both your logic and simply a lack of orginization, it just does not make any sense to me. If you wish to debate a subject organize yourself.
[quote:29pjgl8v]Before starting, you also accepted that Aron used the golden calf as the wrong representation of God. I am glad with our progress. Let the Truth proclaim![/quote:29pjgl8v]
With regard to this statement you made, no I don’t agree with your statement, either there is a disconnect with language, or like the Scriptures, you read what you want to into a text. I stated that the error was the same error as the pagan tibes in the surrounding area. Many of the Pagans in the areas surrounding the Children of Israel where happy to worhip the God of Israel. He was simply a local god to them, not the One God who created and ruled the Universe. SO the Calf was not simply a representation of the One God, but a god who replaced God. The Children of Israel tired waithing for Moses, rather than wiat on Moses and the message from the True God, they demoted God to be equal to the local gods.
Next is your manner of approach, and your strange commentary on Muslims and converting someone who follows Islam. I would not go into someones house and tell them, “You are wrong admit it.” and then make bold statements out of context and without some point of reference. I would submit to them what I felt was the evidence, and tell them how I came up with the conclusion. I would if and when appropriate tell them that I did not agree with the teachings of Islam on this or that basis, but would not as you have done make brash statements as “Catholic statues can never point out to God, for it has no likeness of God at all.” with no supportive evidence. Dropping a statement like this in the middle of your shotgun approach to asserting your other statements does not make any of your statements true, it simply adds to the confusion of your postings.
[quote:29pjgl8v]Think of why Father has proclaimed He has begotten his Son, not created his Son. I was surprised that you called my statement was absurd, when my theology textbook in a Catholic school for highschool students teaches us to make distintion between begetting and creating to understand the identity of Christ as a devine God. I was surprised that you were new to this.[/quote:29pjgl8v]
It would seem evident that your catholic teacher, and catholic textbook or the statements that you have made from them are once again taken out of context, and need citations. You then attack because of statements you pull out of context with no citations which you originally post in regard related to the use of statues to represent aspects of God. While there may be some logic in your mind regarding this, just dropping in a non cited quote which may in proper context be true, needs to be supported by some logical sequence, otherwise a lack of response is not because someone agrees with you, it is (at least in my case) becasue I just can’t figure out what anything you have been posting had to do with your original premise. It may be ok to bring up different subjects in a post, but the way you post confuses the subject.
You have come into a Catholic Board, please re-read the what John said in the original Forum Rules, “There are plenty of debate boards. This is more of a question and answer discussion board. We explain what the Catholic Church teaches and why. We endeavor to help you understand and, once you do, we have fulfilled the site’s mission. You are free to disagree but this is not the place for a debate or thoughtless, anti-Catholic rhetoric. ” You seem to have come here with the intent not to discuss or learn what the Catholic Church teaches, but rather the intent of telling us we are wrong. If that is your intent, do take it to a debate board.
If you want to discuss and learn, stay. If you have differing views, great, state them in a cogent manner, but don’t make silly statements like. “Catholic statues can never point out to God, for it has no likeness of God at all.” What would be more helpful is if you made a statement of your belief and support it, as in the following.
I (Andrew Cha) do not believe that it is permissible to use artistic depictions of the first or second person of the Trinity based on the following reasons.
But your just dropping a statement that you don’t really have any logical support, just an unsupported attack.
I’ll try to tease out a question or two from your previous postings, and reply to them. My first response will be to what appears to be a misrepresentation that you made about me coming over to your side of an argument. But first I think I’ll print out your postings and try to make some sense of them, put them in some logical order and then reply to them sensibly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.