Does Your Church Hang Pictures Portraying Jesus

[LittleLambofJesus]

what would you do if there was no Bible then? What did the Church do for 300 somthing years before there was a Biblical canon?

Argue with each other?

 

[Nickolai]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but what the heck is wrong with requiring Scriptural backing?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that we should do things that are anti-scriptural. However, if we only look at the Bible for everything, we are missing out on a great deal of great edifying Christian things. The Bible was not intended as the be all end all of Christian teaching, the very witness of the Church is to be that. The witness which centers around the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes more than just what's contained in the set of Scriptures called the bible.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

Does Your Church Hang Pictures Portraying Jesus

Your thoughts please.

No.

Because there are no actual pictures of his likeness in existance. Only artists interpretations of what they think he might have looked like.

Plus, there is that whole graven image no-no thing to consider. [bible]Exodus 20:4-6[/bible]

 

[Nickolai]

Argue with each other?

Haha So much has changed. Haha

 

[Nickolai]

No.

Because there are no actual pictures of his likeness in existance. Only artists interpretations of what they think he might have looked like.

Plus, there is that whole graven image no-no thing to consider. [bible]Exodus 20:4-5[/bible]

Better throw out the family photos then. Cause with this line of thought they are included in that.

 

[simonthezealot]

What did the Church do for 300 somthing years before there was a Biblical canon?

They read scripture my friend, Paul Peter and John at times quote each other as scripture and these gospels and epistles were around 240+ years before they were canonized...I have quotes from early writers sharing what they deemed inspired and it was almost identical to the reformed canon. This as early as 2nd century.

 

[Nickolai]

They read scripture my friend, Paul Peter and John at times quote each other as scripture and these gospels and epistles were around 240+ years before they were canonized...I have quotes from early writers sharing what they deemed inspired and it was almost identical to the reformed canon. This as early as 2nd century.

They also had plenty of gnostic Gospels floating around, what was it that kept them from trusting in them? The Church told them what was true and what was false. St. Athanasius was the first to have the Canon we have today. The first canon ever made however was created by the Heretic Marcian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that we should do things that are anti-scriptural. However, if we only look at the Bible for everything, we are missing out on a great deal of great edifying Christian things. The Bible was not intended as the be all end all of Christian teaching, the very witness of the Church is to be that. The witness which centers around the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes more than just what's contained in the set of Scriptures called the bible.

Hi.I see. Well I rather like the teachings of the Scriptures so we will just have to agree to disagree.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Zechariah 8:23 Thus sayeth YHWH-of Hosts: in-Days, the-those, which They-shall-take-fast/hold a-hem/wing, ten mortals/0582 'enowsh, from-all Tongues-of the-Nations.
And-They-take-fast/hold in-hem-of/03671 kanaph a-Man, a-Judean/Y@huwdiy, to-say We-are-going with-You that We-hear Elohiym with-You.

Mark 6:56 And the where ever He went into villages, or into cities, or into fields/hamlets in the market-places, they place the ones being sick and they beseeched Him that only the fringe of the garment of Him they should be touching, and as manysoever as touch of Him/it, were Saved.

 

[simonthezealot]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that we should do things that are anti-scriptural. .

But your churches are friend, even with the best of intentions...

However, if we only look at the Bible for everything, we are missing out on a great deal of great edifying Christian things..

Like what?

The Bible was not intended as the be all end all of Christian teaching, the very witness of the Church is to be that. ..

Whose church? EO? RCC? OO? RO? or as you say one of the 30m reformed ones? NONE...
And yes the bible should be the end all in that we should always look to it as a guide...

The witness which centers around the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes more than just what's contained in the set of Scriptures called the bible.

Scripture gives all thats necessary, just as it claims!

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

what would you do if there was no Bible then? What did the Church do for 300 somthing years before there was a Biblical canon?

There was oral tradition of course, and the written scripture transcribed by laymen before Constantine's unification of paganism with christianity. Aka the Council of Nicea and the canon you refer to.

 

[ScottBot]

But your churches are friend, even with the best of intentions...

Like what?

Whose church? EO? RCC? OO? RO? or as you say one of the 30m reformed ones? NONE...
And yes the bible should be the end all in that we should always look to it as a guide...

Scripture gives all thats necessary, just as it claims!

by who's interpretation?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

What do you all think of the Shroud of Turin?

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I'll come back when you people are listening to others and can discuss this calmly. ...Or maybe not. I do have better things to do, then watch people argue for the sake of arguing.

Have a good one! ...Don't kill each other.

 

[ScottBot]

There was oral tradition of course, and the written scripture transcribed by laymen before Constantine's unification of paganism with christianity. Aka the Council of Nicea and the canon you refer to.

Ah,the amalgamation of Christianity with paganism at the council of Nicea. A classic ad hoc ergo prompter hoc arguement. Paganism and Christianity co-existed up to the time of Constantine and the council, afterwhich paganism appears to drop off the table of history, and therefore must have been "merged" with Christianity. Could it not be that Christianity simply trumpted paganism because people finally came to realize that paganism is empty and essenitally ceased to exist (or at least get marginalized and go dormant).

 

[ScottBot]

What do you all think of the Shroud of Turin?

I am undecided. Evidence is inconclussive and it doesn't change my level of faith for or against.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'll come back when you people are listening to others and can discuss this calmly. ...Or maybe not. I do have better things to do, then watch people argue for the sake of arguing.

Have a good one! ...Don't kill each other.

You must be new on this board

Reve 16:12 And the sixth one pours out the bowl of him on the river, the Great, the Euphrates and is dried up the water of it/him that may be being made ready the WAY/odoV <3598> of the kings, the ones from rising of sun.

 

[simonthezealot]

They also had plenty of gnostic Gospels floating around, what was it that kept them from trusting in them? The Church told them what was true and what was false. St. Athanasius was the first to have the Canon we have today. The first canon ever made however was created by the Heretic Marcian

In 177 Athenagoras without any infallible ruling from the RCC, recognizes books as Divinely inspired scripture, and he derives doctrine from those books. He refers to the books themselves, without any infallible ruling from the RCC, he called them "fitting grounds" for defending the doctrines of Christianity:

 

[simonthezealot]

What do you all think of the Shroud of Turin?

Another legend to draw money in...It's fake.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Another legend to draw money in...It's fake.

I dunno, I mean scientists have examined it and found some interesting things..and have concluded it's not a forgery..

 

[ScottBot]

I dunno, I mean scientists have examined it and found some interesting things..and have concluded it's not a forgery..

Right, it is a burial shroud. They just cannot confirm that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.