Long-lost Jesus painting found

David Neos said:

Yes, because they were supposed to be used in a worship setting. Also, since it was still made, my argument about the physical aspect preserves.

I don't argue that a lot of people don't seem to know here but Incarnation as a mystery not everyone understood.

Click to expand...

It was never used as an aid in their worship, nor did it depict God in any physical form. The only "images" that were used were the sacrifices and ceremonial practices that foreshadowed and typified Christ and his salvific work.

Jonaitis said:

It should have been tossed in the dump, isn't worth even the change in my pocket.

Click to expand...

One man's treasure is another man's garbage.

In medieval times when very few were literate and books were rare the great churches used works of art (paintings and statues and stained glass windows) to educate the faithful in the life of Christ

JackRT said:

In medieval times when very few were literate and books were rare the great churches used works of art (paintings and statues and stained glass windows) to educate the faithful in the life of Christ

Click to expand...

I am going to safely assume many of them were for sex-ed and nothing more.

Jonaitis said:

I am going to safely assume many of them were for sex-ed and nothing more.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you bring me up to speed?

JackRT said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you bring me up to speed?

Click to expand...

It was something similar to what Calvin said about some of the images they would have of nude depictions of women and children in such settings. I am trying to find the quotation.

It was Gregory that said "images are the books of the unlearned." Of course that so-called axiom was used by others too.

Jonaitis said:

It was never used as an aid in their worship, nor did it depict God in any physical form. The only "images" that were used were the sacrifices and ceremonial practices that foreshadowed and typified Christ and his salvific work.

Click to expand...

It was meant to represent the presence of God in Heaven.

David Neos said:

It was meant to represent the presence of God in Heaven.

Click to expand...

God will not have himself represented in images by the imagination of men, that is part of what Exodus 20:4 is talking about. It is not a condemnation of images themselves, but the craft of representing God (or other gods) after anything in creation.

Jonaitis said:

God will not have himself represented in images by the imagination of men, that is part of what Exodus 20:4 is talking about. It is not a condemnation of images themselves, but the craft of representing God (or other gods) after anything in creation.

Click to expand...

You mean like the Lord Christ was?

David Neos said:

You mean like the Lord Christ was?

Click to expand...

The incarnation was not a depiction of God, but the union of the second person of the Godhead to a human nature. In our view, we saw the physical form of his humanity, but hidden in the mystery of the hypostatic union his Godhood was evidently there, invisible to human sight.

Jonaitis said:

The incarnation was not a depiction of God, but the union of the second person of the Godhead to a human nature. In our view, we saw the physical form of his humanity, but hidden in the mystery of the hypostatic union his Godhood was evidently there, invisible to human sight.

Click to expand...

We might have to agree to disagree. This is coming to an issue about weather we worship the divine portion of Christ or the person as a whole.

David Neos said:

We might have to agree to disagree. This is coming to an issue about weather we worship the divine portion of Christ or the person as a whole.

Click to expand...

It is an issue of conflating and of mixing the distinct natures of Christ. While Christ's person is divine, we must acknowledge the distinction between his natures. If we say that him being God, his humanity becomes God, we will be leaning too much toward the heresy of Monophysitism.

Jonaitis said:

It is an issue of conflating and of mixing the distinct natures of Christ. While Christ's person is divine, we must acknowledge the distinction between his natures. If we say that him being God, his humanity becomes God, we will be leaning too much toward the heresy of Monophysitism.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it might also lead to Nestorianism. I will see if I ask about this to someone else. Thank you for the discussion.

David Neos said:

Yes, but it might also lead to Nestorianism. I will see if I ask about this to someone else. Thank you for the discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes, that too (I forgot about that).

ewq1938 said:

Except for Moses, again...he saw God visibly.

Click to expand...

How?

Jonaitis said:

It is an issue of conflating and of mixing the distinct natures of Christ. While Christ's person is divine, we must acknowledge the distinction between his natures. If we say that him being God, his humanity becomes God, we will be leaning too much toward the heresy of Monophysitism.

Click to expand...

There is not a single living Christian who is not an heretic to some other living Christian. And it has always been thus.

JackRT said:

There is not a single living Christian who is not an heretic to some other living Christian. And it has always been thus.

Click to expand...

I am a heretic to the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Seventh Day Adventist, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witness, to name a few.

Jonaitis said:

I am a heretic to the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Seventh Day Adventist, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witness, to name a few.

Click to expand...

I am with you so far.