All this for a statue?

[addo]

Another thread where protestants get things COMPLETELY messed up.
I type this while I venerate the crucifix on my wall.

Jesus said to bear the cross (e.g.: Matthew 10:38), not to wear it, venerate it, or any thing alike.
By the way, are you sarcastic?

And when King David staged a procession or the Ark was in the vanguard of the Israeli armies (The Cross took that place), isn't that veneration?

Please provide the verses. It is easier for me to understand if I read them myself.

What about when it was in the very center of the Temple or the core of the Tabernacle? The details might change and they do, but the veneration of the object is clear.

Thanks, I know that might sting, but I've never been so sure about having found a precedent for veneration, .

How does this prove bowing down to graven images (prohibited in Exodus 20:4-5) acceptable to God?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

No. I don't think they venerated the ark, but what was inside it: the Ten Commandments, God's Law, which is truth (Psalms 119:142;151), by the way.

Um how about the very presence of God Himself?

Exd 25:8 "Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them."

 

[Fireinfolding]

Heb 8;2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Hebrews speaks to the things signified and patterns same as with the ark.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Heb 8;2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Hebrews speaks to the things signified and patterns same as with the ark.

I agree. I don't believe you can make a case that the Ark was an icon though. The Lord said He would dwell among the Israelites through these things that He in fact instructed them to build. Proof of His dwelling among them were the great things He did, mostly in battle, such as bringing the walls of Jericho down.

 

[Dorothea]

But if they did why didnt God encourage it rather then discourage it? Even as it pertains to visiting the ark itself? Why say, they will not do that anymore?

I'm sorry, I probably missed this part of the convo. Sometimes my focus on posts isn't great. What do you mean? Visiting the ark? You are talking about the OT? The people who were worshiping idols or graven images were actually doing so by thinking those statues or sculptures were God. Christians don't do that when they venerate the Bible, or icons, or use a prayer rope. Those are aids in praying to God and studying His Word.

Christ walked as one man upon earth (manifested for our sakes) and is also now seated in heaven. Why wouldnt an image of him be regarded as either? whether a portrayal of him (after the flesh) who was upon the earth or of him who is seated above all in heaven?

Afterall Paul says we are not to even know Jesus after the flesh (anymore) that they once did (indeed) but henceforth they are not to do that any more .Yet an image of him is (for the most part) is portrayed after his flesh (to which Paul speaks, and of not regarding Christ after it anymore). I mean, even as it pertained (also) after the very ark itself which did signify him after a different respect it speaks after the same... "they will not visit it, neither will they do that anymore". The scriptures appear very consistent in respects to that. See what I mean?

could you please give me the scripture verses and chapter that you're referring to for St. Paul so I can get a good understanding and context of what you are talking about? Thanks!

Writing icons of humans is not a sin or about graven images. If this were the case, then we could not have pictures of any of us or our family members. They're all humans.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I agree. I don't believe you can make a case that the Ark was an icon though. The Lord said He would dwell among the Israelites through these things that He in fact instructed them to build. Proof of His dwelling among them were the great things He did, mostly in battle, such as bringing the walls of Jericho down.

Ofcourse he did as they are repesentatives of Christ (who was the temple of God) wherein when opened in heaven (((there))) was SEEN IN ***the temple*** the ARK OF **HIS** TESTAMENT Him abolishing in HIS FLESH= DESTROY **THIS TEMPLE** and I will RAISE IT UP (and it is SEEN in HEAVEN and now its Christ IN YOU is OUR HOPE OF GLORY

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

2Cr 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

How completely awesome is He? He rocks

 

[lighthouse_hope]

How does this prove bowing down to graven images (prohibited in Exodus 20:4-5) acceptable to God?

I don't know chap, and I don't mind, what I'm saying is that I have indeed found a biblical precedent for veneration and as I don't care about external things much... enough said.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I'm sorry, I probably missed this part of the convo. Sometimes my focus on posts isn't great. What do you mean? Visiting the ark? You are talking about the OT? The people who were worshiping idols or graven images were actually doing so by thinking those statues or sculptures were God. Christians don't do that when they venerate the Bible, or icons, or use a prayer rope. Those are aids in praying to God and studying His Word.




could you please give me the scripture verses and chapter that you're referring to for St. Paul so I can get a good understanding and context of what you are talking about? Thanks!

Writing icons of humans is not a sin or about graven images. If this were the case, then we could not have pictures of any of us or our family members. They're all humans.

This verse pertains to know Christ or anyman after the flesh

2Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

The flesh (or man) only knows men after the flesh we live in a world which does so, and which also requires us by the law of the land to have a drivers license (with our pictures on it). So If thats how you would regard it (overall) then it would be illegal for you to have a drivers licenses as well. Theres just to be no other gods before him, not to bow down unto them, idols after that respect.

Though, plenty of folks lose everything they own (even all their pictures of loved ones in fires) devestating, yes, no doubt because we grow fond of pictures and they can carry within us a heavy emotional attachment (undeniably so). We could live without them though we'd rather not though (to be honest) right?

Im not actually advocating for it or otherwise but if need be, I'd be the first to start a bond fire destroying them all without hesitation.

Now, my unbelieving husband would never allow me (I would be met with angry resistance to the idea) as we do have a young daughter who has passed on. He being a former catholic himself has a greater affection for pictures then I myself. We do have three up of her over the sofa and the rest are stored away which I never pull out anymore (given they often grieve me, not comfort me). So my dilema would be with my husband, but nevertheless I understand the fondness or affection towards them Im not saying I do not and am only adressing it in that you bring it up across the board (equally so) as you have.

If all things are to be considered equal in this case then they would need to be equal right? Which would be easier for us to give up if they werent?

 

[sunlover1]

((((hugs firecritter))))

 

[Fireinfolding]

((((hugs firecritter))))

Well that was so nice suncritter a cyber hug out of nowheres

Hugs back at cha sis!

 

[Dorothea]

This verse pertains to know Christ or anyman after the flesh

2Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

The flesh (or man) only knows men after the flesh we live in a world which does so, and which also requires us by the law of the land to have a drivers license (with our pictures on it). So If thats how you would regard it (overall) then it would be illegal for you to have a drivers licenses as well. Theres just to be no other gods before him, not to bow down unto them, idols after that respect.

I think what it comes down to is that we are not gnostics, Amish, or Muslim. We can and do have pictures of holy people who have lived on earth and of Christ in the flesh because it is allowed to be depicted. The flesh is not bad. God made us with body and soul.

These are the notes in my OSB for the above verse:

1Cor. 5:16, 17 Paul did not know "the historical Jesus," as He voluntarily took on our mortality, lived on earth and was known according to the flesh (v. 16). Nobody knows Jesus that way after His Ascension, for his mortal flesh has been transformed into an immortal body. Even so, our old bodies are transformed into a new creation (v. 17) in Christ. Because God created all things through Christ, He will transform and reunite all things--material was well as spiritual--to Himself through Christ.

I believe the Orthodox perspective and interpretation of that verse is different than what you are interpretating it to be. In other words, it doesn't have to do with the graven images or such.

Though, plenty of folks lose everything they own (even all their pictures of loved ones in fires) devestating, yes, no doubt because we grow fond of pictures and they can carry within us a heavy emotional attachment (undeniably so). We could live without them though we'd rather not though (to be honest) right?

Im not actually advocating for it or otherwise but if need be, I'd be the first to start a bond fire destroying them all without hesitation.

Now, my unbelieving husband would never allow me (I would be met with angry resistance to the idea) as we do have a young daughter who has passed on. He being a former catholic himself has a greater affection for pictures then I myself. We do have three up of her over the sofa and the rest are stored away which I never pull out anymore (given they often grieve me, not comfort me). So my dilema would be with my husband, but nevertheless I understand the fondness or affection towards them Im not saying I do not and am only adressing it in that you bring it up across the board (equally so) as you have.

If all things are to be considered equal in this case then they would need to be equal right? Which would be easier for us to give up if they werent?

Pictures give some comfort and some not so much, as your example shows, FIF. But, God gave us the senses to use for worship. Seeing is a big one. And everything that is holy of God, we venerate: The Altar, the Holy Bible, the icons of Saints, Christ, and the life of Christ and His Holy Mother, the Cross, etc. Yes, we Orthodox kiss all of those mentioned (yes, even the bible). Because we honor the holy of God.

 

[Dorothea]

It's not the statue, but what it represents.

For instance, I was at a Benedictine monastary last Sunday for mass and they have a replica of Michelanglo's 'Pieta' (the real one was also vandalized). When I came back from communion there was a woman kneeling before it with rosary in her hand. It was a touching scene. Was she worshiping the statue. I doubt it. What is more likely is this magnificent sculpture was lifting her mind to some other place and helping her work through what she was working through.

After mass, as we passed the replica of the Pieta, several reached out and touched Jesus's feet. Did we really think those were the feet of Jesus? No, but such a tender act of devotion is just one more tangible way in which we express our love for Christ and his people.

Same thing when we venerate the Cross on Good Friday. Do we believe that's really the cross on which Jesus shed His precious Blood? No, but this gives up a tangible opportunity to express our devotion.

When my St. Vincent de Paul conference gets together for our meetings, we have a small figurine of our patron Saint. Do we think the figurine has any special power? No, but it's presence is a visual reminder of the spirit of charity in which we are gathered.

Basically, Catholicism is a whole body, heart and soul type of experience. It's just one more implication of the Incarnation; God humbling Himself to dwell among us.

You know, Tad, I saw your mentioning the Cross of Christ, and I had to mention the blessed event we had at our church back in early June. Some monks and the priest monk from a monastery in PA brought Saints' relics and a piece of the true Cross of Christ. We got to venerate all. It was a wonderful and blessed experience. And this after my trip to Greece where I saw so many holy things and Saints. God is good!

 

[Fireinfolding]

I think what it comes down to is that we are not gnostics, Amish, or Muslim. We can and do have pictures of holy people who have lived on earth and of Christ in the flesh because it is allowed to be depicted. The flesh is not bad. God made us with body and soul.

These are the notes in my OSB for the above verse:

1Cor. 5:16, 17 Paul did not know "the historical Jesus," as He voluntarily took on our mortality, lived on earth and was known according to the flesh (v. 16). Nobody knows Jesus that way after His Ascension, for his mortal flesh has been transformed into an immortal body. Even so, our old bodies are transformed into a new creation (v. 17) in Christ. Because God created all things through Christ, He will transform and reunite all things--material was well as spiritual--to Himself through Christ.

I believe the Orthodox perspective and interpretation of that verse is different than what you are interpretating it to be. In other words, it doesn't have to do with the graven images or such.


Pictures give some comfort and some not so much, as your example shows, FIF. But, God gave us the senses to use for worship. Seeing is a big one. And everything that is holy of God, we venerate: The Altar, the Holy Bible, the icons of Saints, Christ, and the life of Christ and His Holy Mother, the Cross, etc. Yes, we Orthodox kiss all of those mentioned (yes, even the bible). Because we honor the holy of God.

I didnt say it had anything to do with graven images per se' Dorothea it was the knowing him (or even any man) after the flesh that can also pertain to "fleshly knowledge" (as it speaks of this as well). As His flesh is also shown as a veil as well, and a veil can be over the heart (even eyes of the heart).

Yet Paul speaks to graven art as it pertains particularly to "the Godhead" (of which) according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church would "include Christ" wouldnt it?

I dont see how us becoming new creatures in Christ would cancel out what Paul said concerning the Godhead though, see what Im saying?

I will not wrangle with you over it Dorothea, but we are on a forum here where we can post the scriptures and learn from them, I'll leave the rest to God

 

[Dorothea]

I didnt say it had anything to do with graven images per se' Dorothea it was the knowing him (or even any man) after the flesh that can also pertain to "fleshly knowledge" (as it speaks of this as well). As His flesh is also shown as a veil as well, and a veil can be over the heart (even eyes of the heart).

Yet Paul speaks to graven art as it pertains particularly to "the Godhead" (of which) according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church would "include Christ" wouldnt it?

I dont see how us becoming new creatures in Christ would cancel out what Paul said concerning the Godhead though, see what Im saying?

I will not wrangle with you over it Dorothea, but we are on a forum here where we can post the scriptures and learn from them, I'll leave the rest to God

Yes, we are not to depict God the Father as He has not revealed Himself to us in flesh form (or any real form). We can depict Christ, the second person in the Trinity, because he took on flesh, and walked the earth in the human flesh (as He being 100% and 100% God), we can depict Him in the human flesh. Hope that makes sense. There is also first an understanding of the Trinity, which is complicated, and which I've found being on this forum for the past few years, that many are confused by the Trinity. But, yes, no wrangling here.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yes, we are not to depict God the Father as He has not revealed Himself to us in flesh form (or any real form). We can depict Christ, the second person in the Trinity, because he took on flesh, and walked the earth in the human flesh (as He being 100% and 100% God), we can depict Him in the human flesh. Hope that makes sense. There is also first an understanding of the Trinity, which is complicated, and which I've found being on this forum for the past few years, that many are confused by the Trinity. But, yes, no wrangling here.

Okay, Christ is thus counted of the Catholic church as part of the Godhead then. Thats what I thought, thanks Dorothea

But, no sis, it does not make more sense to me now, but I told you I wont wrangle with you Knowing, niether of us will change our minds.

 

[Dorothea]

Okay, Christ is thus counted of the Catholic church as part of the Godhead then. Thats what I thought, thanks Dorothea

But, no sis, it does not make more sense to me now, but I told you I wont wrangle with you Knowing, niether of us will change our minds.

Hold on now. Back up the turnip truck. Did I speak for the Catholic Church? No, I was speaking for the Orthodox Church. Two different churches, FIF, and for others here who have the tendency to mold us into one. Yes, Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity.

 

[visionary]

Old habits die hard..
Rut thinking is also engraved into the trenches of the mind..
Walk up calls are sleep disturbers.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Hold on now. Back up the turnip truck. Did I speak for the Catholic Church? No, I was speaking for the Orthodox Church. Two different churches, FIF, and for others here who have the tendency to mold us into one. Yes, Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity.

Sorry Dorothea, Ive backed up my turnip truck I orginally asked about the Catholic church (by accident) forgetting you are of another church altogther and not of the Catholic.

So Catholics and Orthodox churches believe differently on the Godhead? I had no idea if this is the case.

 

[tadoflamb]

You know, Tad, I saw your mentioning the Cross of Christ, and I had to mention the blessed event we had at our church back in early June. Some monks and the priest monk from a monastery in PA brought Saints' relics and a piece of the true Cross of Christ. We got to venerate all. It was a wonderful and blessed experience. And this after my trip to Greece where I saw so many holy things and Saints. God is good!

Wow! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Dorothea]

Sorry Dorothea, Ive backed up my turnip truck I orginally asked about the Catholic church (by accident) forgetting you are of another church altogther and not of the Catholic.

So Catholics and Orthodox churches believe differently on the Godhead? I had no idea if this is the case.

I don't believe so. although I answered a bit on the use of statues by the Catholics, I'm no expert on their dogma or doctrine.