On one hand you said nothing changed, and in the exact same breadth you affirm that "certain dogmas were incompatible..." talk about contradiction!
That is not a contradiction, but rather your shallowness in this argument, dogma is a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church, it can be expressed differently due to different localities and customs, but that doesn't make they believe total alien concepts, incompatibility in this context came through interpretation therefore the disagreement over it.
So much for your theory that historically orthodox christianity has always remained the same and never changed!
So much for your Christian history knowledge, let alone ecclesiastical terms.
So should Mary the "Mother of God" or "Mother of Christ"? How can both views represent one continuous apostolic church?
They are the same. The debate over that has been long resolved. Wake up and smell the coffee.
The reason we are still running in circles is because everytime you try to justify prostrating and praying to lifeless images you fail miserably.
This is not about my failure, it is about someone's elses complex about not accepting answers and explanations that doesn't fit his given agenda. Simple as that.
You claim to follow the Bible, everytime I quote you a passage condemning bowing to idols and making images you start blabbering about your own personal ideas and rhetoric. Stick to the texts and answer the questions, trust me you will benefit more instead of just writing nonsense.
What I write is based on the sound and historical understanding of Scriptures and Christian traditions that are derived from Scriptures. While sometimes separation could be hard to notice but it is clearly explained.
I have two eyes, alhamdulillaah, and I can clearly see christians bowing and kneeling before idols.
For a purpose, icons are not idols, they do not replace God. We do have eyes too, we see thousands muslims whirling around the pagan shrine in Mecca performing the very same ritual that was once meant for pagan gods. When I bow in Church to the Icon of Christ, I am doing to due to reverence to Him not the object. Still that doesn't explain how you can judge what you see outside for what is meant inside?
The bible doesn't say it's okay to do that as long as you have a pure heart or a clean conscience.
What I said had nothing to do with conscience. When people pray and use icons, they have God in their hearts and mind, through sacred objects. But this is in their hearts, can you see their hearts? If not, how can you judge?
That's like saying, we have no right to judge thieves for stealing cause we don't know what's in the hearts. This is why I keep telling you, you will only humiliate yourself by spouting your personal philosophy, stick to the texts.
Not at all. Although Bible is clear, Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. That is not my personal philosophy. We don't know what is in one's heart when they are stealing... It is God's work to judge and put them in their place. Law of the land judges them because what they do is illegal.
The icons represent the Holy? Which icon represents God? Not a single one?
Christians do not depict what is not visible, but we do depict Christ because He is the visible God to us.
The cherubim represented angels.
Cherubim are angels.
Until you prove to us all that these cherubim were venerated in the same way you "venerate" icons of mary and saints, your argument will continue to be discarded in the trash bin again and again.
First who are you that I have to prove anything?? Second, I am not interested in what you do with the arguments, everyone has eyes to follow and they see your unreasonable irresponsible rejection of explanations for pages now. Third, their placement is for the reverence and remembrance of the Holy. They represent the angelic hosts. They are there to pay respects because they represent something that is from an of God.
Now you just shot yourself in the foot, because you just prove that a marble statue of Virgin Mary is not a mere image, its an idol, just like an image of Baal is an idol, an image of Ram/Krishna is an idol, an image of buddha is an idol, an image of Zeus is an idol, and image of Horus is an idol, etc.
Yea you wish, what you did though is that you listed gods of pagans, Virgin Mary is not a god. Graven images were translated as "idols" as they are created to replace God, and that is why God says no idols before me. And I also said the reference there is to pagan images rather than images in general. Next time read the whole thing before jumping the gun.
What do all these idols have in common? Their devotees bow and worship them and pray to them. I sincerely pray that Allaah gives all idol-worshippers the wisdom to realize the foolishness of their actions, that God alone is worthy of worship and idols cannot hear, let alone answer prayers.
Oh please, don't even attempt to patronize anyone. Your unreasonably, often perversely unyielding attitude to the Christian definitions only proves that you had been defeated in this argument long time ago, you are trying to save face.
The problem is that cherubim and icons of virgin Mary are not the same. Don't put them in the same category.
So you thought it was the real Cherubs present in the Temple? By what category they are not the same, they are both representations what we consider Holy.
Exactly! Do you "venerate" a picture of your driver's license?
No because what I wrote defends the use of icons in veneration and clarifies the "images" argument in the second commandment and that actually shoots your "all images" argument. You simply fail to follow your own arguments and appear very confused and angry which makes my part easier.
Keep repeating that to yourself if it makes you feel better. Most people will agree with me that prayers like this are only addressed to God:
Again what is your obsession with "most people"? Where are these most people?
Since the Hail Mary is a prayer to Mary, some assume its unbiblical. Quite the contrary, actually. The prayer begins, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." This is nothing other than the greeting the angel Gabriel gave Mary in Luke 1:28. The next part reads this way: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." This was exactly what Marys cousin Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42. The only thing that has been added to these two verses are the names "Jesus" and "Mary," to make clear who is being referred to. So the first part of the Hail Mary is entirely biblical. The second part of the Hail Mary is not taken straight from Scripture, but it is entirely biblical in the thoughts it expresses. It reads: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." Lets look at the first words. Some do object to saying "Holy Mary" because they claim Mary was a sinner like the rest of us. But Mary was a Christian (the first Christian, actually, the first to accept Jesus; cf. Luke 1:45), and the Bible describes Christians in general as holy. In fact, they are called saints, which means "holy ones" (Eph. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:2). Furthermore, as the mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Mary was certainly a very holy woman. Some object to the title "Mother of God," but suffice it to say that the title doesnt mean Mary is older than God; it means the person who was born of her was a divine person, not a human person. (Jesus is one person, the divine, but has two natures, the divine and the human; it is incorrect to say he is a human person.) The denial that Mary had God in her womb is a heresy known as Nestorianism (which claims that Jesus was two persons, one divine and one human), which has been condemned since the early 400s and even which the Reformers and Protestant Bible scholars have always rejected.
These kinds of prayers to a "holy queen mother" are quite similar to the ancient Egyptian "veneration" of Isis and the Hindu "veneration" of Kali-Ma
Is it also similar pagan stoning of the evil entities since muslims are now doing it during hajj?
No you didn't, you completely failed to prove how decorative pieces of angels are anything akin to idols of virgin Mary which christians bow down to and worship, and make pilgrimages to shrines containing her image.
First of all, I never specifically declared that these verses are the source we have icons, or we base icons to these verses. That is your false understanding. The verses I showed are the proofs that the imagery of representation were used in order to honor and pay respects to God. Blame your own faulty reasoning for not reading it right.
Words are meaningless if you fail to live up to them. You believe in a God who is without beginning (Jesus had a beginning), uncreated (Jesus was created), immortal (Jesus is mortal - even died according to you), unassailable (Jesus was assailable to thousands of his followers), eternal (eternal means without beginning or end...definitely can't apply to Jesus), everlasting (same as eternal), incomprehensible, bodiless (Jesus had a body - those who deny his body (Docetists) are considered heretics by you), invisible (Jesus was visible), uncircumscribed, without form (Jesus had a form).
Funny, simple answer is Jesus was a not a human turned to God. He was God and He was man. Christ's flesh had a beginning yes. This doesn't mean He didn't exist before that. Nice try.
the devil tries day and night to make believers in One God compromise His oneness and subtly become idol worshippers.
Yet devil causes Christians worship God through Incarnation and others tools of worship... Good one.
No it wasn't built by them.
Certainly it was, the lack of background from you proves that, all you have is he says she says...
But the incredible theory that Elijah went to heaven on a chariot of fire is supported by loads of documents, historical findings, archaelogical evidence, and witness testimonies!
While witness testimonies are something else in this context that only strengthen my argument, Elijah is taken up to Heaven. Kabaa still sits there. Certainly such important object should have a historical background and argument for it. Unfortunately, there is no background to it, not from Abraham only make believes.
The Bible itself says Ishmael will become the father of a great, blessed nation.
Yes, but God makes His covenant with Isaac in that Bible, and that is significant... There are many blessed nations, except Ishmaelites and that is not significant.
Sacrificing animals is a ritual particular to both pagans and Jews, the difference is Jews are suppose to sacrifice animals at the temple dedicated to God and for the sake of God only, whereas pagans sacrifice animals dedicated to various idols and at various temples dedicated to these idols. No one suggests that Judaism is pagan due to the ritual of animal sacrifice, but you constantly humiliate yourself trying to prove Islaam is based on pagan rituals.
Ok how did you connect this line of thought to Islam at the end, that clearly escapes me because Islam is not related to Judaism at all except the fact that it imitates it... The tribes of Arabia had various pagan traditions and rituals to follow, they didn't sacrifice, consecrate, or consume anything according to Jewish doctrines. Jews also made direct contact with God, God gave them real and physical revelation not a prophet who foamed in the mouth when receiving these alleged divine revelations.
No it is not logical at all! That is your own personal philosophical interpretation, because you are trying to save yourself from further humiliation. The bronze snake was never venerated and you know it, no amount of "logical assumptions" can change that. Your faith may be based on assumptions, mine isn't. When God says don't worship idols, I take that seriously, unlike you.
Is there any argument here other than attacking my character? I know you are out of arguments, and therefore angry, but I presented a biblical understanding of the subject. The object was kissed and touched and God's healing came through it, that is veneration. Though it seems you contradict something here again, you said serpent was never venerated here, and then in another place you say it was venerated and almost elevated to position of God, therefore destroyed. You also seem to hold veneration and worship meaning the same, so you happen to confuse yourself further. Which argument do you stick with?
You are ignorant of what constitutes worship.
Why thank you, we should count our blessings because we have an angry muslim who is to teach us what worship means.
