Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread

[epostle1]

I was trying to understand your question.
Some object on the grounds that the Greek word stauros means "an upright pole/post". They see that being different than a cross. JWs hold this view. Others believe we should not have such symbols because it may lead to the same idolatry that Israel fell into in 2 Kings 18:4.

First, God did not command Moses to fashion an idol. Second, stauros is not Hebrew. Third, it was destroyed by the king AFTER it was worshiped as an idol. Protestant iconoclasm (image breaking) cannot come to terms with the fact that God commands physical objects to be used for religious purposes. Nobody burns incense before a crucifix, that's just nuts. Idolatry has been condemned by the Church before there was even a Bible.

How many Christians who use a crucifix overly venerate it to the point of idolatry?

I've never heard or seen such a thing in all my life. It's a straw man fallacy. I suppose it's possible, but such a person would have to be severely mentally handicapped or have brain damage. With all due respect, this question strongly suggests an excuse to justify prejudice.

Others question why we would want to remember the very instrument used to put to death the Saviour of the world.

OK, so they can forget about what it means??? What about Jesus' teaching on suffering? Don't pick up your cross because suffering is nasty and you have no right to be my disciple? Is that what He taught?

If he was put to death by hanging by a rope, we would hang a hangman's noose around our neck? If he was killed by a bow and arrow, would we hang a bow and arrow around our neck? You would think that true worshipers would not be in need of such a reminder of his love for us.

This presupposes a kind of God that isn't God at all. You don't need any physical reminders, you can just intellectualize the crucifixion. Does that lead to brain idolatry?

The brazen serpent is not an idol when it was used properly.
The crucifix is not an idol when it is used properly.
The problem comes in when you become so iconoclastic that God's creation isn't all that good, contrary to Gen. 1:31.
Show me in scripture where God's houses of worship must have bare white walls. Based on the criteria of radical iconoclasts, guitars must banned because it is a physical object used for religious purposes. The same reformers that started this nonsense also smashed organs so start smashing guitars with the same fanatical frenzy.

 

[gadar perets]

Second, stauros is not Hebrew.

I never said stauros is Hebrew. I said it is Greek.

Protestant iconoclasm (image breaking) cannot come to terms with the fact that God commands physical objects to be used for religious purposes.

True, but He did not command crosses to be made for religious purposes.

Nobody burns incense before a crucifix, that's just nuts.

This is one of the replies in the Christian Answers Forum regarding "Using incense at home";

"Because your using incense at home for private prayer I assume, there are no rules, so you can burn away and incense particular objects such as a crucifix that you pray to. Only the Liturgy of the Hours has specific rules. Aside from that, feel free to burn away and incense your crucifix all day."
​

Not only do Catholics "incense" the crucifix, but they also pray to it.

​

Idolatry has been condemned by the Church before there was even a Bible.

Yet they worship Jesus as the one true God.

I've never heard or seen such a thing in all my life. It's a straw man fallacy. I suppose it's possible, but such a person would have to be severely mentally handicapped or have brain damage. With all due respect, this question strongly suggests an excuse to justify prejudice.

See above.

OK, so they can forget about what it means???

Would you forget what the cross means if you never used a cross? I sure wouldn't. Such physical objects are totally unnecessary and were never commanded in Scripture to be made.

The brazen serpent is not an idol when it was used properly.
The crucifix is not an idol when it is used properly.

I totally agree. The problem arises when they are used improperly.

Show me in scripture where God's houses of worship must have bare white walls.

They don't. In fact, YHWH's temple was adorned with physical images. However, there is a big difference between an image of a pomegranate and a giant crucifix with the image of a man on it that people pray to. We are to worship in spirit and in truth.

 

[epostle1]

I never said stauros is Hebrew. I said it is Greek.

Moses was a Greek???

True, but He did not command crosses to be made for religious purposes.

God commanded a prototype. The use of a cross for religions purposes goes back to the first few centuries of Christianity, but do you have anything to do with THAT church???

This is one of the replies in the Christian Answers Forum regarding "Using incense at home";

"Because your using incense at home for private prayer I assume, there are no rules, so you can burn away and incense particular objects such as a crucifix that you pray to. Only the Liturgy of the Hours has specific rules. Aside from that, feel free to burn away and incense your crucifix all day."​

That's a custom of the eastern Orthodox, it's not written by a Catholic. Whoever wrote that isn't expressing themselves properly. Even the Orthodox don't pray to crucifixes. A reply on a forum is not a good source for catechesis. I understand the use of incense, it's in Rev. but pray to a crucifix is just wrong. The words chosen is wrong, what is understood is clear, but not clear to hostile anti-Catholics.

Not only do Catholics "incense" the crucifix, but they also pray to it.

Just because some inarticulate bone-head in a forum makes such a statement does not mean it has been dogmatically declared by the Pope, and I am certain, if questioned the author would clarify his statements, if he knows anything. "Pray to" does not mean "worship". In all my 66 years I have never seen or heard anyone praying to a crucifix, and I've been around the world. The very idea of praying to any physical object is propagated by stupid ignorant anti-Catholics, swallowed whole by stupid gullible people.

You misrepresented the author as a source of Catholic practices, and tried to trip me up under a false pretense. A lie can only be defended by more lies. I left CF a long time ago; it was snake pit, but still have an account there.

Yet they worship Jesus as the one true God.

That must really conflict with either/or thinking.

Would you forget what the cross means if you never used a cross? I sure wouldn't. Such physical objects are totally unnecessary and were never commanded in Scripture to be made.

The pagan Romans assembled the cross Jesus died on, and there was never a command in Scripture either. If there is, it isn't likely the pagan Romans would consult a non-existing NT for instructions.

They don't. In fact, YHWH's temple was adorned with physical images. However, there is a big difference between an image of a pomegranate and a giant crucifix with the image of a man on it that people pray to. We are to worship in spirit and in truth.

"Please stop that "pray to" nonsense. It's offensive.
You are running from the foreshadow of the brazen serpent. The difference between the brazen serpent and the Temple items is vast. Nobody got healed by looking at a relief carving. The real issue here is denial of the sacramental principle. Choose your denials wisely.

You can only focus on the differences, and refuse to truthfully examine the similarities. The use and purpose of a crucifix as a legitimate devotional aid can be understood with time, study and an open mind.

 

[Philip James]

such as a crucifix that you pray to

Anyone who prays 'to' a crucifix or statue is in error and needs Reconcilliation

 

[epostle1]

What feast is Paul admonishing the Gentile converts in Corinth to keep? The Feast of Unleavened Bread which directly follows the Passover sacrifice.

The unleaven bread that Paul speaks of is not real bread, it's a metaphor for sincereity and truth. The Cup of Blessing is, however, a real physical cup with real physical Wine in it. It's the 3rd cup out of 4 in the traditional seder/Passover meal. The names of the 4 cups can be verified on any Jewish site.

1 Cor. 10:16-26 – Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 – in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

​

 

[gadar perets]

Moses was a Greek???

??? This discussion started when I wrote, "Some object on the grounds that the Greek word stauros means "an upright pole/post". You then said, "Second, stauros is not Hebrew". I corrected you by stating I said it was Greek. Then you wrote, "Moses was a Greek"??? What on earth on you talking about? I said nothing about Moses.

God commanded a prototype. The use of a cross for religions purposes goes back to the first few centuries of Christianity, but do you have anything to do with THAT church???

YHWH commanded the type. Yeshua died on the anti-type. YHWH did NOT command men to reproduce the anti-type so we can all have one hanging around our necks and mounted in our churches. What proof do you have that Christians used crucifixes in the first few centuries of Christianity? While I belong to the Body of Messiah, I do not follow the errors of any church.

​

You misrepresented the author as a source of Catholic practices, and tried to trip me up under a false pretense. A lie can only be defended by more lies. I left CF a long time ago; it was snake pit, but still have an account there.

I did not misrepresent anything. Sorry, but I accidentally wrote, "Christian Answers Forum" instead of "Catholic Answers Forum". I was trying to provide a Catholic source for you.

​

The pagan Romans assembled the cross Jesus died on, and there was never a command in Scripture either. If there is, it isn't likely the pagan Romans would consult a non-existing NT for instructions.

This has nothing to do with my question. You claim a crucifix helps people to remember. I'm asking you if you can remember without the aid of a crucifix.

You are running from the foreshadow of the brazen serpent. The difference between the brazen serpent and the Temple items is vast. Nobody got healed by looking at a relief carving. The real issue here is denial of the sacramental principle. Choose your denials wisely.

No, I'm running from a man made command that is not found in Scripture and that could lead to idolatry. Just as the type led to idolatry, so can the anti-type.

You can only focus on the differences, and refuse to truthfully examine the similarities. The use and purpose of a crucifix as a legitimate devotional aid can be understood with time, study and an open mind.

I understand the similarities. It is those very similarities (including the resulting idolatry) that prevent me from using a crucifix. I have no problem remembering Yeshua's death or his love for me without a crucifix. In fact, the bread and the cup are the ONLY symbols believers are given to remember Yeshua's death.

Also, any man placed on the crucifix is a FALSE representation of Messiah Yeshua.

 

[gadar perets]

The unleaven bread that Paul speaks of is not real bread, it's a metaphor for sincereity and truth. The Cup of Blessing is, however, a real physical cup with real physical Wine in it. It's the 3rd cup out of 4 in the traditional seder/Passover meal. The names of the 4 cups can be verified on any Jewish site.

You are assuming the Cup of Blessing is taken at the seder. It was not. The seder is on Abib 15, the Cup of Blessing was on Abib 14, the day he died.

1 Cor. 10:16-26 – Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

The verse you quoted says, "is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?", but your conclusion is, "This IS the actual body and blood." "Participation in" does not mean "IS".

1 Cor. 10:18 – in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

We "participate in" a symbol that represents the true.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

​

​

The "Last Supper" took place on the evening BEFORE the Passover seder took place. Yeshua was NOT having a seder.

 

[epostle1]

??? This discussion started when I wrote, "Some object on the grounds that the Greek word stauros means "an upright pole/post". You then said, "Second, stauros is not Hebrew". I corrected you by stating I said it was Greek. Then you wrote, "Moses was a Greek"??? What on earth on you talking about? I said nothing about Moses.

Who do you think held up the "stauros" in Numbers 21? A golf caddy?

YHWH commanded the type. Yeshua died on the anti-type. YHWH did NOT command men to reproduce the anti-type so we can all have one hanging around our necks and mounted in our churches. What proof do you have that Christians used crucifixes in the first few centuries of Christianity? While I belong to the Body of Messiah, I do not follow the errors of any church.

"Type" means typology, the study of foreshadow. There is no such thing as anti-foreshadow. "Body of Messiah" is not in Scripture. The term is theologically absurd.
Jesus didn't found a temporary church prone to teach errors. If the gates of Hades prevailed against the Church He founded, then Jesus is a liar. So what do you think "not prevail" means? People make errors, there are no doctrinal errors in the historic Church that Jesus founded. If there was, then the gates of Hades would have prevailed. Jesus is not a liar. If churches are in error but not you, then logically you are your own pope.

Anchor, fish, and Chi-Rho symbols from the Catacombs of St. Sebastian. 150 -400 AD
Fish Symbol . Another common symbol was the fish. Sometimes it depicts men who have been caught by Christ and his apostles ("I will make you fishers of men," Matthew 4:19). But the fish (Greek ichthus), through a Greek acrostic, also became a symbol of Jesus himself, each letter standing for a word that explains who he is. So far in my perusal of catacomb pictures, all the fish seem to have scales, unlike the simple ichthus fish widely used in our day.

Anchor Symbol. A third common item in catacomb symbology is a boat anchor. It expresses the firm expectation of eternal life that we Christians en "We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure" (Hebrews 6:19). The anchor also was used as a disguised cross in a day when the cross itself was seldom used for fear of persecution. The crosspiece or "stock" at the top of the anchor reminded Christians of the cross on which Jesus died.

Detail of the central shepherd from the intricately carved marble Sarcophagus of the Good Shepherd , Catacomb of Praetextatus, Rome, 390s AD. Full sarcophagus.

Good Shepherd Symbol. Also very popular is the Good Shepherd, a symbol of Christ's care for his sheep ("I am the Good Shepherd," John 10:11). Sometimes the shepherd is seen carrying a sheep over his shoulders; occasionally the sheep is by his side.

The cross became the prominent symbol of the faith from the fifth century and beyond, but the catacomb figures described above mark the very earliest symbols of Christianity. You can see many examples of these symbols from the catacombs in my website, Early Christian Symbols from the Catacombs (www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/).

Oldest known painting of Jesus on Mary's lap
150 AD.
cave humidity and soft rock is why it is so deteriorated
painted by Christians hiding from persecution
​

[/QUOTE]

 

[epostle1]

I did not misrepresent anything. Sorry, but I accidentally wrote, "Christian Answers Forum" instead of "Catholic Answers Forum". I was trying to provide a Catholic source for you.

Then provide a link to the page the quote came from so context of the discussion can be viewed, and stop playing games with Catholic devotions just to reinforce anti-Catholic myths. You can get anything from posts from a discussion board, and just because it's Catholic Answers doesn't make the opinions a reliable source. In case you didn't notice, Catholics are allowed to have opinions and raise questions.

This has nothing to do with my question. You claim a crucifix helps people to remember. I'm asking you if you can remember without the aid of a crucifix.

Of course we can. It's just an aid, not an end in itself. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Catholics in persecuted countries where crucifixes are illegal get along better than we do. I remember every time I suffer so I don't *need* a crucifix.

Luke 9:23 – Jesus says we must take up this cross daily. He requires us to join our daily temporal sacrifices (pain, inconvenience, worry) with His eternal sacrifice.

Rom. 5:2-3 – Paul says that more than rejoicing in our hope, we rejoice in our sufferings which produces endurance, character and hope. Through faith, suffering brings about hope in God and, through endurance, salvation.

1 Cor. 1:23- Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them. Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified.

1 Cor. 2:2 – Paul preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified. While the cross was the scandal of scandals, and is viewed by the non-Christian eye as defeat, Catholic spirituality has always exalted the paradox of the cross as the true tree of life and our means to salvation.

Phil. 1:29 – for the sake of Christ we are not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for His sake. Growing in holiness requires more than having faith in God and accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. We must also willfully embrace the suffering that befalls us as part of God’s plan. Thus, Christ does not want our faith alone, but our faith in action which includes faith in suffering.
Suffering - Scripture Catholic

No, I'm running from a man made command that is not found in Scripture and that could lead to idolatry. Just as the type led to idolatry, so can the anti-type.

A "man made command"??? Oh.....your one of those... Where do you come up with this lunacy?

III. "YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"

2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

Superstition

2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.41

Idolatry

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
footnotes
41 Cf. Mt 23:16-22.
42 Ps 115:4-5, 8; cf. Isa 44:9-20; Jer 10:1-16; Dan 14:1-30; Bar 6; Wis 13:1-15:19.
43 Josh 3:10; Ps 42:3; etc.
44 Mt 6:24.
45 Cf. Rev 13-14.
46 Cf. Gal 5:20; Eph 5:5.
47 Origen, Contra Celsum 2,40G 11,861.
What's this? Scripture in the catechism??? WHO KNEW!!!

I understand the similarities. It is those very similarities (including the resulting idolatry) that prevent me from using a crucifix. I have no problem remembering Yeshua's death or his love for me without a crucifix. In fact, the bread and the cup are the ONLY symbols believers are given to remember Yeshua's death.

Then don't use a crucifix. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Just don't knock what you refuse to understand. Can you post a picture of a symbolic cup? I've never seen one.

Also, any man placed on the crucifix is a FALSE representation of Messiah Yeshua.

There is no such thing as a false representation of an artistic depiction. No doubt you despise the work of Michelangelo.

 

[epostle1]

The "Last Supper" took place on the evening BEFORE the Passover seder took place. Yeshua was NOT having a seder.

Then "Yeshua" didn't have the FOURTH CUP from the cross either.

 

[gadar perets]

Who do you think held up the "stauros" in Numbers 21? A golf caddy?

There was no "stauros" in Numbers 21. The Greek Septuagint does not use that word. Only the NT uses it. Moses held up a "nace" in Hebrew or a "semeion" in Greek.

"Type" means typology, the study of foreshadow. There is no such thing as anti-foreshadow.

What do you call the "cross" in relation to the type/foreshadow?

This is from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia under "Types in Scripture" ;

In Galatians 4:24, for instance, the type and its antitype are represented as allegoroumena, "said by an allegory"; in Colossians 2:17, the type is said to be skia ton mellonton "a shadow of things to come"; in Hebrews 9:9, it is called parabole, a "parable" of its antitype.​

"Body of Messiah" is not in Scripture. The term is theologically absurd.

"Christos" was transliterated "Christ" into English. The meaning is "anointed". "Anointed" in Hebrew is "maschiach" which is transliterated into English as "Messiah".

Jesus didn't found a temporary church prone to teach errors. If the gates of Hades prevailed against the Church He founded, then Jesus is a liar. So what do you think "not prevail" means? People make errors, there are no doctrinal errors in the historic Church that Jesus founded. If there was, then the gates of Hades would have prevailed. Jesus is not a liar. If churches are in error but not you, then logically you are your own pope.

It is obvious the "churches" are in error since they teach contrary to one another. Some sprinkle, others totally immerse; some keep the 7th day Sabbath, others keep Sunday or no day; some keep the Feasts, others don't; some eat swine's flesh, others don't. If you want to believe the Catholic church is the "historic Church" that is error free, that is your choice. The true church does not trample on the Almighty's holy days or eat unclean or sprinkle instead of immerse for baptism. Nor does the true church murder people.

The cross became the prominent symbol of the faith from the fifth century and beyond, but the catacomb figures described above mark the very earliest symbols of Christianity.

Correct. The "cross/crucifix" was NOT a symbol in the early church; the early church being the first century church. The chi-rho was not a symbol of the cross, but of the title "Christ" as your website shows.

 

[gadar perets]

Then provide a link to the page the quote came from so context of the discussion can be viewed

Use of incense at home Scroll down to Red_James.

Of course we can. It's just an aid, not an end in itself. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Catholics in persecuted countries where crucifixes are illegal get along better than we do. I remember every time I suffer so I don't *need* a crucifix.

I understand perfectly and your answer validates my point.

Luke 9:23 – Jesus says we must take up this cross daily. He requires us to join our daily temporal sacrifices (pain, inconvenience, worry) with His eternal sacrifice.

Rom. 5:2-3 – Paul says that more than rejoicing in our hope, we rejoice in our sufferings which produces endurance, character and hope. Through faith, suffering brings about hope in God and, through endurance, salvation.

1 Cor. 1:23- Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them. Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified.

1 Cor. 2:2 – Paul preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified. While the cross was the scandal of scandals, and is viewed by the non-Christian eye as defeat, Catholic spirituality has always exalted the paradox of the cross as the true tree of life and our means to salvation.

Phil. 1:29 – for the sake of Christ we are not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for His sake. Growing in holiness requires more than having faith in God and accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. We must also willfully embrace the suffering that befalls us as part of God’s plan. Thus, Christ does not want our faith alone, but our faith in action which includes faith in suffering.

Good verses with good explanations except for 1 Cor. 1:23 - my commentary in blue;

1 Cor. 1:23- Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them (It is not the corpus of Jesus, but an artists rendition of the corpus of Jesus). Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified. (An empty cross in no way depicts a risen Christ. It can ONLY depict the means of his death. No figure is needed on it just as the Pope does not need a figure on the cross on his mitre)

A "man made command"??? Oh.....your one of those... Where do you come up with this lunacy?

Show me a command from the Father, Son or any Apostle and perhaps I'll rethink my position.

III. "YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"

2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

Superstition

2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.41

Idolatry

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
footnotes
41 Cf. Mt 23:16-22.
42 Ps 115:4-5, 8; cf. Isa 44:9-20; Jer 10:1-16; Dan 14:1-30; Bar 6; Wis 13:1-15:19.
43 Josh 3:10; Ps 42:3; etc.
44 Mt 6:24.
45 Cf. Rev 13-14.
46 Cf. Gal 5:20; Eph 5:5.
47 Origen, Contra Celsum 2,40G 11,861.
What's this? Scripture in the catechism??? WHO KNEW!!!

The words I highlighted in red condemn the Catholic practice of exalting the Son (a creature) as though he is the "one true God" even though he said his Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3).

Can you post a picture of a symbolic cup? I've never seen one.

You know full well that by "cup" I meant its contents, the fruit of the vine, is the symbol of Yeshua's blood.

There is no such thing as a false representation of an artistic depiction. No doubt you despise the work of Michelangelo.

Did the artist see Yeshua so he can make an exact replica? No. He just conjured up an image in his mind that he thinks represents Yeshua and then created it. As for Michelangelo, he demonstrated tremendous artistic ability and his artwork is breathtaking, but his renditions are from his mind, not from reality. His depiction of God on the Sistine Chapel ceiling is especially unacceptable by anyone who endeavors to obey Exodus; 20:4;

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;​

 

[epostle1]

Use of incense at home Scroll down to Red_James.

So what. "Pray to" is shorthand and commonly understood as "pray, and in close proximity to..." You still are blowing a forum comment way out of proportion, and you still REFUSE to believe Catholics don't pray to any physical object, based on "0" to skimpy evidence at best. This is bigotry. I'm sure you have been banned from that forum for thumbing your nose at the rules.

Good verses with good explanations except for 1 Cor. 1:23 - my commentary in blue;

1 Cor. 1:23- Paul preaches a Christ crucified, not just risen. Catholic spirituality focuses on the sacrifice of Christ which is the only means to the resurrection. This is why Catholic churches have crucifixes with the corpus of Jesus affixed to them (It is not the corpus of Jesus, but an artists rendition of the corpus of Jesus). Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified. (An empty cross in no way depicts a risen Christ. It can ONLY depict the means of his death. No figure is needed on it just as the Pope does not need a figure on the cross on his mitre)​

NOT ONCE did I say a figure needed to be on a cross. That is a straw man fallacy.

Show me a command from the Father, Son or any Apostle and perhaps I'll rethink my position.

Are you so brainwashed to think we Catholics are commanded to use devotional aids??? Show me one deacon, priest, bishop or Pope or Apostle that has commanded anyone in a 2000 year period to use devotional aids or recite private devotional prayers. Your logical fallacies don't work. This is the second time you came up with this lunacy, you refuse be taught or corrected. More bigotry.

The words I highlighted in red condemn the Catholic practice of exalting the Son (a creature) as though he is the "one true God" even though he said his Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3).

I see. You are a Jehovah's Witless, or something close to it. A creature? This Christological FALSEHOOD was refuted at the Council of Nicae in 325 AD. The full doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed and clarified at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, and those authoritive verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. That leaves you with a novel teaching invented by super-pope Charles Russel Taze in 1852, who recycled the Arian heresy of 325 AD! If you are a JW, your true pope, Arius, is a certified heretic!!!

John 5:23 – Jesus equates Himself with the Father, “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

John 10:30 – Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus’ statement in John 14:28, “the Father is greater than I,” cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus’ statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh.

Rev. 1:8 – God says He is the “Alpha and the Omega.” In Rev. 22:13, Jesus also says He is the “Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end.” The only possible conclusion one can reach is that Jesus is equal to the Lord God.

You know full well that by "cup" I meant its contents, the fruit of the vine, is the symbol of Yeshua's blood.

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover on the wrong day???”

27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is a symbol of my blood of the covenant, which is symbolically poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
That's not what it says, but it's how you read it.

Did the artist see Yeshua so he can make an exact replica? No. He just conjured up an image in his mind that he thinks represents Yeshua and then created it. As for Michelangelo, he demonstrated tremendous artistic ability and his artwork is breathtaking, but his renditions are from his mind, not from reality. His depiction of God on the Sistine Chapel ceiling is especially unacceptable by anyone who endeavors to obey Exodus; 20:4;

Does that mean mental images in your mind is idolatry?

You read into Exodus 20:4 what isn't there. God’s commandment “thou shall not make a graven image” is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. A crucifix, a statue of Jesus and/or His mother are not false gods. Grow a brain cell.

God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped. You have a double standard when God commands the use of images. You express the usual false dichotomous "either/or" thinking, not the Hebraic "both/and" thinking.

The life, death and Resurrection of Jesus was deeply imprinted in the minds and hearts of the first Christians. They had no Bibles. Who could forget what they saw and heard? The events were passed down orally. The first NT book was written some 20 years after Pentecost. Do you think the story of the life, death and Resurrection was also conjured up images?
Is the carved symbols (100-300 AD.) in the catacombs idolatry?
Radical iconoclasm is idolatry in reverse because it says that any kind of image must not be used to elevate the mind to God, and God's creation wasn't all that good.

Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 – for example, God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim. This heavenly image, of course, is not worshiped by the Israelites. Instead, the image disposes their minds to the supernatural and draws them to God.

The first iconoclasts were the Muslims in the 7th century. That went dormant but reared it's ugly head almost 1000 years later.

​

​

 

[gadar perets]

So what. "Pray to" is shorthand and commonly understood as "pray, and in close proximity to..." You still are blowing a forum comment way out of proportion, and you still REFUSE to believe Catholics don't pray to any physical object, based on 0 to skimpy evidence. This is bigotry.

I posted that link because you asked for it.

What is the Pope doing here? Admiring the artwork? I think not. This is over veneration of a piece of stone or whatever it is made of.

NOT ONCE did I say a figure needed to be on a cross. This is a straw man fallacy.

No, you did not. However, you did say to use a cross without a figure is to preach the risen Christ, but not his death. Is that what the Pope is doing by having a plain cross on his mitre? Of course not. Neither are Protestants doing that by having plain crosses.

I see. You are a Jehovah's Witless, or something close to it. This Christological FALSEHOOD was refuted at the Council of Nicae in 325 AD. The full doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed and clarified at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, and those authoritive verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. That leaves you with a novel teaching invented by super-pope Charles Russel Taze in 1852, who re-invented the Arian heresy of 325 AD!

My beliefs come from Scripture, not from JWs or false creeds.

John 5:23 – Jesus equates Himself with the Father, “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

No, he equates honoring him with honoring the Father.

John 10:30 – Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus’ statement in John 14:28, “the Father is greater than I,” cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus’ statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh.

John 14:28 is correct. Your understanding of John 10:30 is incorrect. They are not one in equality, but one in purpose. They are one in the same exact sense that believers are to be one (John 17:11, 22).

Rev. 1:8 – God says He is the “Alpha and the Omega.” In Rev. 22:13, Jesus also says He is the “Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end.” The only possible conclusion one can reach is that Jesus is equal to the Lord God.

This verse usually appears in red letters because the translators thought Yeshua was speaking. However, notice the context including verse 12.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.​

We know Yeshua is coming, however, YHWH is coming as well?

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, Adonai YHWH will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him.​

"His arm" is a reference to Yeshua. They are both coming in a sense. Yeshua will come as YHWH's representative. When he comes, it will be as though YHWH (Yeshua's Father and "God") will come as well. YHWH will literally come later to dwell in New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:1-5).

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover on the wrong day?”

The first day of UB is Abib 15. This conversation took place on Abib 14. They were preparing ahead of time to celebrate Passover. They had a pre-seder meal before the actual seder the following night at which their wives and children would attend as well.

27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is a symbol of my blood of the covenant, which is symbolically poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
That's not what it says, but it's how you read it.

That is the only way to understand it since he hadn’t yet sacrificed his body, nor was his blood shed. It was a symbol for the disciples of what was to come and it is a symbol for us of what had occurred in the past.

But you read into Exodus 20:4 what isn't there. God’s commandment “thou shall not make a graven image” is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped.

You are absolutely correct. I had a senior moment when I posted that. I know full well images are acceptable as long as they are not worshiped. That is why in a previous post I mentioned the Temple had images in it that were acceptable.

The first iconoclasts were the Muslims in the 7th century. That went dormant but reared it's ugly head almost 1000 years later.

I would say the first iconoclast was YHWH (Leviticus 26:30).

 

[epostle1]

I posted that link because you asked for it.

What is the Pope doing here? Admiring the artwork? I think not. This is over veneration of a piece of stone or whatever it is made of.

The Pope is venerating the crucifix for what it represents. You will never see that with anti-Catholic blinders on. Even with a dictionary you cannot accept the meaning of "veneration". The Pope doesn't NEED the crucifix, and neither did the Popes who had no crucifix while rotting in dungeons. The crucifix is not just about Jesus, it's about us too.

No, you did not. However, you did say to use a cross without a figure is to preach the risen Christ, but not his death. Is that what the Pope is doing by having a plain cross on his mitre? Of course not. Neither are Protestants doing that by having plain crosses.

I never said a plain cross was wrong. They have a different functions but similar to a crucifix. Preaching Christ crucified does not mean standing on the corner with a sign. There are more ways to preach Christ crucified than intellectualizing or reading it from a book. It can be expressed in art (an aspect of preaching) as well as with your mouth. But your words are gone in a nanosecond.

My beliefs come from Scripture, not from JWs or false creeds.

Which creed is false, the Nicene or the Apostles Creed or both? Your beliefs come from what you think Scripture means, the same with everybody. Rejecting the very source that assembled and discerned the Scriptures in the first place is illogical and self defeating.

No, he equates honoring him with honoring the Father.

So you are anti-trinitarian??? Jesus and the Father are separate entities???

John 14:28 is correct. Your understanding of John 10:30 is incorrect. They are not one in equality, but one in purpose. They are one in the same exact sense that believers are to be one (John 17:11, 22).

That reduces God and Jesus to a human level. What do think got the Jews so scandalized? He claimed to be Who???

This verse usually appears in red letters because the translators thought Yeshua was speaking. However, notice the context including verse 12.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.​

He certainly doesn't mean salvation by works alone, yet that is what we are constantly accused of. If one doesn't understand role good works plays in our justification, they will never understand Revelation 22:12.
​

 

[gadar perets]

I never said a plain cross was wrong.

No, but you called out Protestants by writing, "Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified." They do no such thing. BTW, I'm not a Protestant either, but I am an ex-Catholic.

Which creed is false, the Nicene or the Apostles Creed or both?

I definitely reject the Nicene Creed. The Apostle's Creed is acceptable depending on what is meant by "the holy catholic Church".

So you are anti-trinitarian??? Jesus and the Father are separate entities???
That reduces God and Jesus to a human level. What do think got the Jews so scandalized?

Yes to your first two questions. Yeshua was 100% human. YHWH has never been human, so He cannot be reduced to a human level. He is a Divine Spirit who brought forth a human Son by speaking him into existence.

​

He certainly doesn't mean salvation by works alone, yet that is what we are constantly accused of. If one doesn't understanding what role good works plays in our justification, they will never understand Revelation 22:12.

I agree.

 

[epostle1]

No, but you called out Protestants by writing, "Many Protestant churches no longer display the corpus of Jesus (only an empty cross). Thus, they only preach a Christ risen, not crucified." They do no such thing. BTW, I'm not a Protestant either, but I am an ex-Catholic.

Your frozen into dichotomous thinking: either/or. (if A is true, then B must be false) "Both/and" is more a Hebraic approach to reading Scripture: "A is true, and so is a"

If you read what I said carefully, you will discover, hopefully, that I did not say an empty cross is wrong. I said an empty cross preaches Christ risen. How is that wrong? One is good, the other is better, depending on what it's used for. Good/ better. A Christ risen cross (like the Pope's mitre, like in Protestant churches, is good. A cross with a corpus on it preaches Christ crucified, Scripture in 3 dimensions. Both/and, not either or. It depends on what the cross/crucifix is used for. Paul preached what?

But an empty cross doesn't preach Christ crucified; there are no short cuts to the Resurrection, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. both/and. Some Protestants don't even have crosses of any kind. IMO, they have been influenced by the poisonous Alexander Hyslop. But many Protestant churches have large empty crosses in their churches. What Protestant in their right mind would object to preaching Christ risen??? This is what, the third time you have posted about one line? I am not trying to embarrass you, you are doing that to yourself.

You are trying to defend this wacko idea that God absolutely forbids and kind of physical object, fashioned appropriately, for any kind of worship or devotional aid. That is not in the Bible. Distorting His command against graven images and false gods and turning it into a man made tradition (invented 200 years ago) as a weapon against Catholics and Orthodox is not in the Bible either. The command for bare white walls with no art is a man made tradition. It's not in the Bible. The pictures if the Pope didn't prove anything either, except desperation on your part.

I definitely reject the Nicene Creed.

Because it was originally adopted at the Council of Nicae in 325 AD. This is when the Church proved she was always trinitarian with scripture AND Tradition. "both/and", not false dichotomous "either/or". Arius used Bible alone. He lost because the tradition of Arianism did not exist. Keep in mind 80% of the bishops had supported Arius before the council convened, which proves the Church was superintended by the Holy Spirit, and not ruled by power hungry control freaks ( a cartoon image of the Magisterium that has been drilled into your brain). Athanasius didn't refute Arius with his private interpretation of Scripture. Arius was refuted by the Church's interpretation of Scripture AND WHAT HAD ALWAYS BEEN BELIEVED. (both/and, not either/or)

The evidence is found in the canons of Nicae of 325 AD.

Constantine was an Arian, so how could he allegedly preside at the Council of Nicae that ruled against Arianism??? Think about it. It doesn't make sense. But you have been taught a lot of things about Constantine that don't make sense.

The Apostle's Creed is acceptable depending on what is meant by "the holy catholic Church".

It means: "the holy Mickey Mouse Club church. You can find it in the Bible with your tweezers and microscope.

Yes to your first two questions. Yeshua was 100% human. YHWH has never been human, so He cannot be reduced to a human level. He is a Divine Spirit who brought forth a human Son by speaking him into existence.

Jesus is like an Oreo cookie??? All this time I have believed we are made in the image and likeness of God. Silly me.

+ + +...​

In seeking to understand the traditional family, Christians should keep in mind that not only are individual persons created in the image of God, but so is the family itself. The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity. There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son." In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son. (both/and, not either/or) In other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love".

The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.
And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child).

Thus, it is precisely because the homosexual sex act is not ordered to the procession of another person, that it can never be a Trinitarian reflection of the divine essence.

Indeed, the sexual act itself, which is supposed to be a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, becomes, through the homosexual act, a blasphemy against God since it ends up distorting the Trinitarian image of Him.

The human sexual act either affirms God's image or it distorts it. This is why all forms of contraceptive sex, including the homosexual act, are serious sins: they seek to create God in another image. It is anti-Trinitarian.

The Catholic Legate

Gadar, you are made in the image and likeness of God, and Arius cannot change the truth.

 

[gadar perets]

Your frozen into dichotomous thinking: either/or. (if A is true, then B must be false) "Both/and" is more a Hebraic approach to reading Scripture: "A is true, and so is a"

If you read what I said carefully, you will discover, hopefully, that I did not say an empty cross is wrong. I said an empty cross preaches Christ risen. How is that wrong? One is good, the other is better, depending on what it's used for. Good/ better. A Christ risen cross (like the Pope's mitre, like in Protestant churches, is good. A cross with a corpus on it preaches Christ crucified, Scripture in 3 dimensions. Both/and, not either or. It depends on what the cross/crucifix is used for. Paul preached what?

But an empty cross doesn't preach Christ crucified; there are no short cuts to the Resurrection, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. both/and. Some Protestants don't even have crosses of any kind. IMO, they have been influenced by the poisonous Alexander Hyslop. But many Protestant churches have large empty crosses in their churches. What Protestant in their right mind would object to preaching Christ risen??? This is what, the third time you have posted about one line? I am not trying to embarrass you, you are doing that to yourself.

I read all your posts carefully. Had you read mine carefully, you would realize I NEVER said you were wrong. In fact, I clearly said I know you did not say Protestants were wrong. The bottom line is this; It is better to have a cross with no figure than to have a cross with a figure that is NOT Yeshua's figure. You can pretend all you want that the figure on a crucifix is acceptable because it is a representation of Yeshua. It is not. Neither are portraits of Yeshua acceptable. Why? Because some artists portray him as a blonde haired Caucasian and others portray him as a black man. Some even have the audacity to put a pagan halo over his head. Others think nothing of portraying him in piss. NO portrayals of Yeshua are better than ANY portrayals of him. The same holds true of portrayals of God.

You are trying to defend this wacko idea that God absolutely forbids and kind of physical object, fashioned appropriately, for any kind of worship or devotional aid. That is not in the Bible. Distorting His command against graven images and false gods and turning it into a man made tradition (invented 200 years ago) as a weapon against Catholics and Orthodox is not in the Bible either. The command for bare white walls with no art is a man made tradition. It's not in the Bible. The pictures if the Pope didn't prove anything either, except desperation on your part.

Here, again, you did not read my post carefully in which I stated we don't need to have bare white walls. Physical objects, fashioned appropriately, are acceptable. Images of YHWH and Yeshua can never be fashioned appropriately since no one knows what they looked like. If you want to have an image of a lamb on your wall, no problem. Just don't put images of a man on your wall or ceiling and claim it is Yeshua or God.

Because it was originally adopted at the Council of Nicae in 325 AD. This is when the Church proved she was always trinitarian with scripture AND Tradition. "both/and", not false dichotomous "either/or". Arius used Bible alone. He lost because the tradition of Arianism did not exist. Keep in mind 80% of the bishops had supported Arius before the council convened, which proves the Church was superintended by the Holy Spirit, and not ruled by power hungry control freaks ( a cartoon image of the Magisterium that has been drilled into your brain). Athanasius didn't refute Arius with his private interpretation of Scripture. Arius was refuted by the Church's interpretation of Scripture AND WHAT HAD ALWAYS BEEN BELIEVED. (both/and, not either/or)

The evidence is found in the canons of Nicae of 325 AD.

Constantine was an Arian, so how could he allegedly preside at the Council of Nicae that ruled against Arianism??? Think about it. It doesn't make sense. But you have been taught a lot of things about Constantine that don't make sense.

I don't know why you are bringing up Constantine or Arian or the Council. I did not mention anything pro or con about any of them and I am not an Arian. He was wrong as well. All that matters are the words of the creed which are unscriptural.

It means: "the holy Mickey Mouse Club church. You can find it in the Bible with your tweezers and microscope.

Jesus is like an Oreo cookie??? All this time I have believed we are made in the image and likeness of God. Silly me.

+ + +...​

​

Mocking comments such as these only serve to show me your lack of spirituality. They do not help me to understand your view or to understand what is wrong with my view. Please try to abstain from carnal replies and simply dialogue with me in a respectful manner.

In seeking to understand the traditional family, Christians should keep in mind that not only are individual persons created in the image of God, but so is the family itself. The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.

If you are referring to having a father, mother and son, who is the mother in the trinity? Certainly not the Holy Spirit.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

One truth, the latter. The creed is wrong.

This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity. There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

Where are we taught that children are one flesh with their parents?

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son." In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son. (both/and, not either/or) In other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love".

The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

I agree except that I believe the same thing is true without the trinity doctrine.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic.

The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.
And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child).

Thus, it is precisely because the homosexual sex act is not ordered to the procession of another person, that it can never be a Trinitarian reflection of the divine essence.

Indeed, the sexual act itself, which is supposed to be a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, becomes, through the homosexual act, a blasphemy against God since it ends up distorting the Trinitarian image of Him.

The human sexual act either affirms God's image or it distorts it. This is why all forms of contraceptive sex, including the homosexual act, are serious sins: they seek to create God in another image. It is anti-Trinitarian.

I agree except that I believe the same thing is true without the trinity doctrine.

Gadar, you are made in the image and likeness of God, and Arius cannot change the truth.

I know full well that I am made in YHWH's image and likeness. Arius has nothing to do with that.

 

[epostle1]

I read all your posts carefully. Had you read mine carefully, you would realize I NEVER said you were wrong. In fact, I clearly said I know you did not say Protestants were wrong. The bottom line is this; It is better to have a cross with no figure than to have a cross with a figure that is NOT Yeshua's figure. You can pretend all you want that the figure on a crucifix is acceptable because it is a representation of Yeshua. It is not. Neither are portraits of Yeshua acceptable. Why? Because some artists portray him as a blonde haired Caucasian and others portray him as a black man. Some even have the audacity to put a pagan halo over his head. Others think nothing of portraying him in piss. NO portrayals of Yeshua are better than ANY portrayals of him. The same holds true of portrayals of God.

That's like saying a painted portrait of your mother/grandmother/great grandmother is unacceptable because it's not a photograph.

Here, again, you did not read my post carefully in which I stated we don't need to have bare white walls. Physical objects, fashioned appropriately, are acceptable. Images of YHWH and Yeshua can never be fashioned appropriately since no one knows what they looked like. If you want to have an image of a lamb on your wall, no problem. Just don't put images of a man on your wall or ceiling and claim it is Yeshua or God.

That's not in the Bible, and no one is claiming such an image is "Yeshua" or God. That's the job of an anti-Catholic. Show me a verse that forbids the making of Scripture in 2-3 dimensional form, especially for the benefit of 95% of the world population that could not read up to the 19th century. Chapter and verse, please.

I don't know why you are bringing up Constantine or Arian or the Council. I did not mention anything pro or con about any of them and I am not an Arian. He was wrong as well. All that matters are the words of the creed which are unscriptural.

Please quote what words of the Nicene Creed are not derived from Scripture. You may not be an Arian, but you accept Arius' teaching that Jesus (Yeshua) was created. The infallible Council of Nicae is modeled after the infallible Council of Jerusalem, like all councils. It is not modeled after AT&T, the Ford Motor Co., or Microsoft. The structure of the Church is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, contrary to what has been drilled into your brain. The Trinity was believed before there was a Bible, but not as clarified as it was at the infallible Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, whose infallible proclamations are accepted by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. But rejected by a tiny minority that started a mere 200 years ago, at best. The only way you can reject historical facts is to re-write history to make it fit your presuppositions.

​

Mocking comments such as these only serve to show me your lack of spirituality. They do not help me to understand your view or to understand what is wrong with my view. Please try to abstain from carnal replies and simply dialogue with me in a respectful manner.

I will try, but it's difficult when you have such a stiff neck.

If you are referring to having a father, mother and son, who is the mother in the trinity? Certainly not the Holy Spirit.

The family is the best analogy, no analogy is perfect. That's why hyper-literalist legalists don't understand analogy.
ANALOGY
noun, plural a·nal·o·gies.

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability:I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. 1. Linguistics.
      1. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when-ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
      2. a form resulting from such a process.
   2. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Origin of analogy 1530–40; < Latin analogia < Greek. See analogous, -y3
Synonyms
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
1. comparison, likeness, resemblance, similitude, affinity. 2. correspondence.
the definition of analogy

One truth, the latter. The creed is wrong.

The creed may wrong to your letter of the law, it is not wrong to the spirit of the law. The letter kills, the spirit gives life. 2_Corinthians 3: 4-6.

Where are we taught that children are one flesh with their parents?

Human Biology 101
Genetics 201.

I agree except that I believe the same thing is true without the trinity doctrine.

That's similar to saying, "I agree that a baby proceeds from the love between a daddy and a mommy, but there isn't 3 of them."

I know full well that I am made in YHWH's image and likeness. Arius has nothing to do with that.

Arius has everything to do with the Christological heresy that Jesus (Yeshua) who is God, created himself. I am trying to expose it's ugly roots, which go back to Arius. I am convinced he was reared in a dysfunctional family.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Show me a verse that forbids the making of Scripture in 2-3 dimensional form, especially for the benefit of 95% of the world population that could not read up to the 19th century. Chapter and verse, please.

A fallacy claimed fact or history of fallacy claimed fact deserves no reply. All the fallacy benefited has been itself.