Roman Catholicism

[brother_edward]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

It's interesting that you can claim the first Church as some kind of cult or heresy. The Church (not just the Catholic Church, but the entire Church as a body) began during the ministry of Christ.

Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

This Church stood united, barring several heresies, for a thousand years after which there was a division which is still viewed as a scandal and a wound to be healed by everyone involved. So I'm a bit confused. Are you arguing that Jesus did *not* build His Church on St. Peter?

Yes. I am arguing that.

First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. " . . . you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church . . . " In Greek, nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word, "petros," is masculine, petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock He would build His church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor, and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular, "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular), we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Pet. 2:8.). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

More

Have you taken any Greek yourself? There's grammar involved, as well as history. While there *is* a distinction in the centuries-older Attic Greek, the Greek of Homer, by the time of the New Testament no such distinction occurred. However, that doesn't *actually* matter, as the language being spoken wasn't Greek, but was of course Aramaic. In the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew, they display this.

This is displayed in the use of the name Cephus, which is a Hellenization of Kepha, which simply means "rock". As with many things, you lose the wordplay in translation. The reason that it isn't the same gender is because you aren't allowed to use a feminine ending for a man's name.

However, beyond all of that, what *else* could "You are rock, and upon this rock I build my church" *possibly* mean?  

[brother_edward]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Also, I see the link to The Economist stating that the Catholic Church in the US (which isn't the same thing as the Vatican), has 171.6 billion dollars in it's annual budget. However, that link goes to show that the vast, overwhelming majority of that money goes to funding Hospitals, Universities and Schools.

What exactly is the problem with healing the sick and teaching?

I have no problem with that, and I think it is great! What I have a problem with is people who claim that the church has no money as the apologist did subtly in point 4.

She has many x-ray machines, beds, IV drips, homeless shelters, libraries, and hundreds of millions of hungry mouths to feed. You seem to be implying that the money to maintain these works of mercy is being somehow hoarded. I don't think that's what you mean, so please help me understand.  

[Garland-Green]

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

It's interesting that you can claim the first Church as some kind of cult or heresy. The Church (not just the Catholic Church, but the entire Church as a body) began during the ministry of Christ.

Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

This Church stood united, barring several heresies, for a thousand years after which there was a division which is still viewed as a scandal and a wound to be healed by everyone involved. So I'm a bit confused. Are you arguing that Jesus did *not* build His Church on St. Peter?

Yes. I am arguing that.

First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. " . . . you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church . . . " In Greek, nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word, "petros," is masculine, petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock He would build His church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor, and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular, "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular), we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Pet. 2:8.). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

More

Have you taken any Greek yourself? There's grammar involved, as well as history. While there *is* a distinction in the centuries-older Attic Greek, the Greek of Homer, by the time of the New Testament no such distinction occurred. However, that doesn't *actually* matter, as the language being spoken wasn't Greek, but was of course Aramaic. In the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew, they display this.

This is displayed in the use of the name Cephus, which is a Hellenization of Kepha, which simply means "rock". As with many things, you lose the wordplay in translation. The reason that it isn't the same gender is because you aren't allowed to use a feminine ending for a man's name.

However, beyond all of that, what *else* could "You are rock, and upon this rock I build my church" *possibly* mean?

Translating something into another language is hard. Could the logic you applied to the Greek translation be used on the English translation?

I am assuming the meaning of the word on how it is used other places in the text. It is impossible to avoid any assumption. The question is what assumption makes more sense.

While it is true that Aramaic (i.e. Syriac) translations spell the words for “Peter” and “rock” the same, they actually follow the same gender pattern as the Greek text. The word kefa in Syriac is a feminine noun (Lexicon Syriacum, p.315). Like the Greek, Latin and Coptic in Matthew 16:18 the Syriac word for “this” is feminine. But Peter is called kefa. B. Harris Cowper, in his work Principles of Syriac Grammar tells us that in Syriac “names and appellations of men are masculine” (p. 65). When nouns are used figuratively they are treated “as of the gender of those which they represent” (p. 95). As an example, Cowper cites the Syriac word melta, meaning “word.” Although it is at other times feminine, when it is used of Jesus it is masculine. That means that the Syriac text, like the Greek, uses a masculine word for Peter’s name and a feminine word for the foundation upon which the church is built. This is confirmed by the fact that in the Greek New Testament the name “Cephas” (drawn from the spoken Aramaic of Jesus’ day) is masculine— , BAG, p. 431. Aramaic may not make as sharp a distinction in meaning between masculine and feminine words for rock as Greek does. Yet the fact that the Syriac maintains the gender distinction shows that Jesus is referring to something other than Peter.

Soure

The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.  

[brother_edward]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

It's interesting that you can claim the first Church as some kind of cult or heresy. The Church (not just the Catholic Church, but the entire Church as a body) began during the ministry of Christ.

Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

This Church stood united, barring several heresies, for a thousand years after which there was a division which is still viewed as a scandal and a wound to be healed by everyone involved. So I'm a bit confused. Are you arguing that Jesus did *not* build His Church on St. Peter?

Yes. I am arguing that.

First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. " . . . you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church . . . " In Greek, nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word, "petros," is masculine, petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock He would build His church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor, and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular, "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular), we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Pet. 2:8.). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

More

Have you taken any Greek yourself? There's grammar involved, as well as history. While there *is* a distinction in the centuries-older Attic Greek, the Greek of Homer, by the time of the New Testament no such distinction occurred. However, that doesn't *actually* matter, as the language being spoken wasn't Greek, but was of course Aramaic. In the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew, they display this.

This is displayed in the use of the name Cephus, which is a Hellenization of Kepha, which simply means "rock". As with many things, you lose the wordplay in translation. The reason that it isn't the same gender is because you aren't allowed to use a feminine ending for a man's name.

However, beyond all of that, what *else* could "You are rock, and upon this rock I build my church" *possibly* mean?

Translating something into another language is hard. Could the logic you applied to the Greek translation be used on the English translation?

I am assuming the meaning of the word on how it is used other places in the text. It is impossible to avoid any assumption. The question is what assumption makes more sense.

While it is true that Aramaic (i.e. Syriac) translations spell the words for “Peter” and “rock” the same, they actually follow the same gender pattern as the Greek text. The word kefa in Syriac is a feminine noun (Lexicon Syriacum, p.315). Like the Greek, Latin and Coptic in Matthew 16:18 the Syriac word for “this” is feminine. But Peter is called kefa. B. Harris Cowper, in his work Principles of Syriac Grammar tells us that in Syriac “names and appellations of men are masculine” (p. 65). When nouns are used figuratively they are treated “as of the gender of those which they represent” (p. 95). As an example, Cowper cites the Syriac word melta, meaning “word.” Although it is at other times feminine, when it is used of Jesus it is masculine. That means that the Syriac text, like the Greek, uses a masculine word for Peter’s name and a feminine word for the foundation upon which the church is built. This is confirmed by the fact that in the Greek New Testament the name “Cephas” (drawn from the spoken Aramaic of Jesus’ day) is masculine— , BAG, p. 431. Aramaic may not make as sharp a distinction in meaning between masculine and feminine words for rock as Greek does. Yet the fact that the Syriac maintains the gender distinction shows that Jesus is referring to something other than Peter.

Soure

The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

... your boy used a coptic translation *from* the greek to make his point on Aramaic. He may as well have used the King James Bible to try and make the same point. Mr. Pope is also apparently unaware that Hebrew was a liturgical language, much like Latin or Slavonic. Christ and Peter *spoke* Aramaic, even if they knew how to read and write in Hebrew.  

[cristobela]

kattneko

Garland-Green

Worshiping Idols?

Bishops in front of Pope Benedict XVI during their ordination


John Paul II kisses statue of Mary During 1985 visit to Peru.


Pope Francis kisses the statue of Our Lady of Aparecida (Our Lady of Aparecida is a celebrated 18th-century clay statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary) presented to him on July 24 by Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno.

Okay, I'm going to start addressing this right here.
First, Our priests prostrate themselves before the ALTAR, not the pope. The Pope has even done this. These men are going through an Ordination. They are humbling themselves before the Altar (Prophetic act as humbling oneself for before God). The Pope has prostrated himself before the altar many times.
Second, look closely. The Pope isn't kissing Mary. He's kissing the hand of Jesus. This is how we show love and respect. He is lowering himself to kiss the hand of the representation of his King.
Third, Yes, he's kissing a statue of Mary. She's important. The Mother of Christ is deserving of respect, yes? She is the mother of God. She is an example to us. What is wrong with respecting her?
I will probably address the rest of this later but now I must get ready for work.

Hey sister kattneko, in the spirit of submitting all things to what the Word of God says and making an honest assessment of the practice, I'd like to offer three points for consideration.



Loving Jesus

Quote:

He's kissing the hand of Jesus. This is how we show love and respect.

(1) First, the way Jesus instructs us, as His followers, to show Him love is this:

• John 14:15 (NIV)
  
  15 “If you love me, keep my commands.

Not by kissing a statue, but by doing what He said.


The way we're instructed to show respect (reverence) for God is:

• Deuteronomy 13:4 (NIV)
  
  4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
  

An opposite example of respecting:

• Luke 20:13-14 (NIV)
  
  13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
  
  14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

...obviously killing Him is disrespect, but prior to this, in the parable, God had sent other servants (prophets) whom they ignored and killed; so, in essence they were ignoring God's will, not doing what He says, not listening to Him. This is also disrespect. Because if you're not listening to Him, that means something/someone else is Lord over you (be it yourself or someone else; your own will, someone elses' will, in place of our Heavenly Father's will).

The way He wants us to love and respect Him is by obeying His teachings and instructions—not by kissing a statue—but listening to His commands. Those commands include loving Him wholeheartedly and not expressing love to other gods/beliefs that deviate from His commands. Thus we cannot worship like the pagans because we cannot adopt practices that originated to honor other gods (which I mentioned in the other thread [Ash Wednesday]); what is conducive to loving God with our whole hearts is loving and respecting Him the way He says He wants to be loved (obeyed, worshiped, respected). And that leads me to the second point:



Kissing Statues in Scripture

(2) In the books of the bible, the only examples I'm able to find of kissing statues as a sign of respect for the person the image represents are references to idolatrous practices, the ways of the nations, which, again, we're not to adopt, nor re-dedicate to the Most High; this act is spoken of disapprovingly, and I'll offer two examples:

Kissing the Baal Statue


• 1 Kings 19:18 (NIV)
  
  18 Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.”

Kissing the Calf-statues


• Hosea 13:2 (NIV)
  
  2 Now they sin more and more;
      they make idols for themselves from their silver,
  cleverly fashioned images,
      all of them the work of craftsmen.
  It is said of these people,
      “They offer human sacrifices!
        They kiss[a] calf-idols!”
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Hosea 13:2 Or “Men who sacrifice / kiss

Question: is it alright to kiss the calf-idol if it were in representation of YHWH/Jesus?
Answer: No, considering that the calf-idol that Aaron had made, was made in representation of YHWH Himself, not another god, but to the One who brought them out of Egypt, and God still condemned the act:

• Exodus 32:4-5 (NIV)
  
  4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[a] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
  
  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.”
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Exodus 32:4 Or This is your god; also in verse 8

“to the Lord” in verse 5 is “to YHWH” (ליהוה) in the Hebrew. In their minds, they're not worshiping anyone other than the Holy God of Israel through this image.
http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/32-5.htm

...and yet, YHWH called it corrupt.

• Exodus 32:7 (NIV)
  
  7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

Do they really think the gold statue, that was just made, is what brought them up out of Egypt? Or that the statue is a representation of the One who did? It's the latter considering that they're holding the festival in honor of YHWH and they hadn't formed the calf until after witnessing all ten plagues, seeing the Red Sea part, and crossing over safely; thus they didn't make the image until after being delivered. The image did not deliver them. Be it cow-likeness or human-likeness, making physical representations of God is sin / a transgression of His commands. He calls it corrupt when we do. So, not even making a statue in representation of the Most High is acceptable, let alone making an image of Him to kiss in honor of Him. We don't honor Him when we disobey Him.

That said, knowing it was a corruption of what YHWH had just commanded them, then where did they get this idol making tradition? Egypt. The world. The pagans. Likewise, kissing statues is a tradition that has been adopted from the nations. It's not something that obedient Israelites did in worship of the Most High; it is not commanded, nor an allowable practice, thus not an obedient expression of love towards God in the way He asked to be worshiped. He asked us to worship Him by obeying His commands, and avoid adopting the ways of the nations, even if we made Him the focus of the practice.

• Deuteronomy 12:30-31 (NIV)
  
  30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
  
  
• Jeremiah 10:2 (NIV)
  
  2 This is what the Lord says:
  
  “Do not learn the ways of the nations
      or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
      though the nations are terrified by them.
  
  
• Leviticus 18:3-4 (NIV)
  
  3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God.

Final point:



Kissing YHWH's Son

(3) I am aware that there is a passage in the Psalms suggesting that we kiss God's Son.

• Psalm 2:11-12 (NIV)
  
  11 Serve the Lord with fear
        and celebrate his rule with trembling.
  12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
        and your way will lead to your destruction,
  for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
        Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

However this isn't in reference to kissing a statue. Obedient examples of kissing, in terms of an act of reverence, in scripture, is the custom of kissing kings; for example, in King Saul's anointing:

• 1 Samuel 10:1 (NIV)
  
  10 Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the Lord anointed you ruler over his inheritance?[a]
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. 1 Samuel 10:1 Hebrew; Septuagint and Vulgate over his people Israel? You will reign over the Lord’s people and save them from the power of their enemies round about. And this will be a sign to you that the Lord has anointed you ruler over his inheritance:

Since the Psalms were prophetic, they would be prophesying about a time when Jesus was physically present here with us, either in His first coming or second coming; He is our King. Thus kissing the Son, is accepting Him as King, allowing yourself to be governed by Him, showing respect to the King, paying homage to the King (to God's Son).

I suppose this is why some Catholics—after “crossing themselves” (touching their forehead, then sternum [or navel], then left shoulder and then right shoulder while reciting “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”—kiss their hand/thumb when they're done. Since Jesus is not here physically present with us, they kiss the hand. My relatives would do this [and taught me to do so as a child]. And, in theory, that would have been okay, until you realize that there is an example of an idolatrous practice that involved kissing your hand to idolize creation:

Celestial bodies


• Job 31:26-28 (NIV)
  
  26 if I have regarded the sun in its radiance
      or the moon moving in splendor,
  27 so that my heart was secretly enticed
      and my hand offered them a kiss of homage,
  28 then these also would be sins to be judged,
      for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.

One could argue that as long as Jesus is the one you're doing the homage to, you can kiss your hand. But that's not what “kiss the son” refers to in the Psalms. If all the nations will bow down before Jesus, when He comes to reign, bringing their treasures to Him, thus paying tribute, they're going to physically kiss Him or pay respectful homage to Him. Not to a statue, nor to their own hand. So, again, where are the Catholics getting this practice of kissing their hand and kissing statues? It's not part of the commands of God. But kissing statues (and one's hand) is mentioned when describing idolatrous practices. There's only one answer: they're taking inspiration from the pagans (which is prohibited). Like I showed above, we're suppose to leave Gentile spirituality behind, not take practices that belonged to the idols and use them to honor the Father and the Son.

To use an analogy, say you marry someone and develop a unique form of expressing affection towards them; then, you became a widow and get remarried sometime later, but that unique display of affection that you shared with your ex-husband, you then try to use on your new husband—despite Him knowing this was a special act of intimacy you developed with the ex-husband. He's not going to like it, even if you say, “but I do it with you in mind now”. If you're truly over your ex (-idols), then you erase your past (and all the practices you shared with him). It shouldn't hurt to burn all pictures/customs you shared with him (or the opposite, a man shouldn't find it hard to burn all the images of his late wife, all special dates he shared with his late wife, or forms of affection they shared that were unique to their relationship, if he's truly over her and is committed to his new wife).


Summary:

So, in a nutshell:

1) We love and respect Jesus by obeying His commands (and one of which is not to worship Him in the ways of the pagans; if not detrimental, the practices of the pagans are useless, lie about His true nature, and no matter what, will always be an expression of love/respect for the “other god” that the practice originated to honor).

2) the practice of "kissing the hand" and "kissing statues representing a god" is condemned in scripture and present in the pagan spirituality (and idolatrous—thus disobedient—Israelite tradition).

3) Though we are commanded to kiss God's Son, it's not by kissing a statue or our own hand (or anyone else's hand) that we do so.

Considering all of that biblical information, and knowing that there exists the command to not adopt the ways of the nations, it's safe to say that such a practice of venerating God by kissing statues is prohibited by the Father. It is not an acceptable way to show Him love and respect.

note: I am not ignoring the topic of bowing down before the altar, but I did not address it because scriptures are silent on this—they neither speak against, nor for, the act of prostrating before an altar. I don't find that action happening at all in scripture. Neither before the bronze altar nor altar of incense.

That said, please sincerely consider the information presented above. We cannot impose upon God expressions of love and respect that He has prohibited us from adopting in the first place. If we want to love God, then we must do what He likes, things that are in accord with His commands, and not examples of violations of it / sin.  

[kattneko]

cristobela

kattneko

Garland-Green

Okay, I'm going to start addressing this right here.
First, Our priests prostrate themselves before the ALTAR, not the pope. The Pope has even done this. These men are going through an Ordination. They are humbling themselves before the Altar (Prophetic act as humbling oneself for before God). The Pope has prostrated himself before the altar many times.
Second, look closely. The Pope isn't kissing Mary. He's kissing the hand of Jesus. This is how we show love and respect. He is lowering himself to kiss the hand of the representation of his King.
Third, Yes, he's kissing a statue of Mary. She's important. The Mother of Christ is deserving of respect, yes? She is the mother of God. She is an example to us. What is wrong with respecting her?
I will probably address the rest of this later but now I must get ready for work.

Hey sister kattneko, in the spirit of submitting all things to what the Word of God says and making an honest assessment of the practice, I'd like to offer three points for consideration.



Loving Jesus

Quote:

He's kissing the hand of Jesus. This is how we show love and respect.

(1) First, the way Jesus instructs us, as His followers, to show Him love is this:

• John 14:15 (NIV)
  
  15 “If you love me, keep my commands.

Not by kissing a statue, but by doing what He said.


The way we're instructed to show respect (reverence) for God is:

• Deuteronomy 13:4 (NIV)
  
  4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
  

An opposite example of respecting:

• Luke 20:13-14 (NIV)
  
  13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’
  
  14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’

...obviously killing Him is disrespect, but prior to this, in the parable, God had sent other servants (prophets) whom they ignored and killed; so, in essence they were ignoring God's will, not doing what He says, not listening to Him. This is also disrespect. Because if you're not listening to Him, that means something/someone else is Lord over you (be it yourself or someone else; your own will, someone elses' will, in place of our Heavenly Father's will).

The way He wants us to love and respect Him is by obeying His teachings and instructions—not by kissing a statue—but listening to His commands. Those commands include loving Him wholeheartedly and not expressing love to other gods/beliefs that deviate from His commands. Thus we cannot worship like the pagans because we cannot adopt practices that originated to honor other gods (which I mentioned in the other thread [Ash Wednesday]); what is conducive to loving God with our whole hearts is loving and respecting Him the way He says He wants to be loved (obeyed, worshiped, respected). And that leads me to the second point:



Kissing Statues in Scripture

(2) In the books of the bible, the only examples I'm able to find of kissing statues as a sign of respect for the person the image represents are references to idolatrous practices, the ways of the nations, which, again, we're not to adopt, nor re-dedicate to the Most High; this act is spoken of disapprovingly, and I'll offer two examples:

Kissing the Baal Statue


• 1 Kings 19:18 (NIV)
  
  18 Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.”

Kissing the Calf-statues


• Hosea 13:2 (NIV)
  
  2 Now they sin more and more;
      they make idols for themselves from their silver,
  cleverly fashioned images,
      all of them the work of craftsmen.
  It is said of these people,
      “They offer human sacrifices!
        They kiss[a] calf-idols!”
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Hosea 13:2 Or “Men who sacrifice / kiss

Question: is it alright to kiss the calf-idol if it were in representation of YHWH/Jesus?
Answer: No, considering that the calf-idol that Aaron had made, was made in representation of YHWH Himself, not another god, but to the One who brought them out of Egypt, and God still condemned the act:

• Exodus 32:4-5 (NIV)
  
  4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[a] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
  
  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.”
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Exodus 32:4 Or This is your god; also in verse 8

“to the Lord” in verse 5 is “to YHWH” (ליהוה) in the Hebrew. In their minds, they're not worshiping anyone other than the Holy God of Israel through this image.
http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/32-5.htm

...and yet, YHWH called it corrupt.

• Exodus 32:7 (NIV)
  
  7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

Do they really think the gold statue, that was just made, is what brought them up out of Egypt? Or that the statue is a representation of the One who did? It's the latter considering that they're holding the festival in honor of YHWH and they hadn't formed the calf until after witnessing all ten plagues, seeing the Red Sea part, and crossing over safely; thus they didn't make the image until after being delivered. The image did not deliver them. Be it cow-likeness or human-likeness, making physical representations of God is sin / a transgression of His commands. He calls it corrupt when we do. So, not even making a statue in representation of the Most High is acceptable, let alone making an image of Him to kiss in honor of Him. We don't honor Him when we disobey Him.

That said, knowing it was a corruption of what YHWH had just commanded them, then where did they get this idol making tradition? Egypt. The world. The pagans. Likewise, kissing statues is a tradition that has been adopted from the nations. It's not something that obedient Israelites did in worship of the Most High; it is not commanded, nor an allowable practice, thus not an obedient expression of love towards God in the way He asked to be worshiped. He asked us to worship Him by obeying His commands, and avoid adopting the ways of the nations, even if we made Him the focus of the practice.

• Deuteronomy 12:30-31 (NIV)
  
  30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
  
  
• Jeremiah 10:2 (NIV)
  
  2 This is what the Lord says:
  
  “Do not learn the ways of the nations
      or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
      though the nations are terrified by them.
  
  
• Leviticus 18:3-4 (NIV)
  
  3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God.

Final point:



Kissing YHWH's Son

(3) I am aware that there is a passage in the Psalms suggesting that we kiss God's Son.

• Psalm 2:11-12 (NIV)
  
  11 Serve the Lord with fear
        and celebrate his rule with trembling.
  12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
        and your way will lead to your destruction,
  for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
        Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

However this isn't in reference to kissing a statue. Obedient examples of kissing, in terms of an act of reverence, in scripture, is the custom of kissing kings; for example, in King Saul's anointing:

• 1 Samuel 10:1 (NIV)
  
  10 Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the Lord anointed you ruler over his inheritance?[a]
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. 1 Samuel 10:1 Hebrew; Septuagint and Vulgate over his people Israel? You will reign over the Lord’s people and save them from the power of their enemies round about. And this will be a sign to you that the Lord has anointed you ruler over his inheritance:

Since the Psalms were prophetic, they would be prophesying about a time when Jesus was physically present here with us, either in His first coming or second coming; He is our King. Thus kissing the Son, is accepting Him as King, allowing yourself to be governed by Him, showing respect to the King, paying homage to the King (to God's Son).

I suppose this is why some Catholics—after “crossing themselves” (touching their forehead, then sternum [or navel], then left shoulder and then right shoulder while reciting “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”—kiss their hand/thumb when they're done. Since Jesus is not here physically present with us, they kiss the hand. My relatives would do this [and taught me to do so as a child]. And, in theory, that would have been okay, until you realize that there is an example of an idolatrous practice that involved kissing your hand to idolize creation:

Celestial bodies


• Job 31:26-28 (NIV)
  
  26 if I have regarded the sun in its radiance
      or the moon moving in splendor,
  27 so that my heart was secretly enticed
      and my hand offered them a kiss of homage,
  28 then these also would be sins to be judged,
      for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.

One could argue that as long as Jesus is the one you're doing the homage to, you can kiss your hand. But that's not what “kiss the son” refers to in the Psalms. If all the nations will bow down before Jesus, when He comes to reign, bringing their treasures to Him, thus paying tribute, they're going to physically kiss Him or pay respectful homage to Him. Not to a statue, nor to their own hand. So, again, where are the Catholics getting this practice of kissing their hand and kissing statues? It's not part of the commands of God. But kissing statues (and one's hand) is mentioned when describing idolatrous practices. There's only one answer: they're taking inspiration from the pagans (which is prohibited). Like I showed above, we're suppose to leave Gentile spirituality behind, not take practices that belonged to the idols and use them to honor the Father and the Son.

To use an analogy, say you marry someone and develop a unique form of expressing affection towards them; then, you became a widow and get remarried sometime later, but that unique display of affection that you shared with your ex-husband, you then try to use on your new husband—despite Him knowing this was a special act of intimacy you developed with the ex-husband. He's not going to like it, even if you say, “but I do it with you in mind now”. If you're truly over your ex (-idols), then you erase your past (and all the practices you shared with him). It shouldn't hurt to burn all pictures/customs you shared with him (or the opposite, a man shouldn't find it hard to burn all the images of his late wife, all special dates he shared with his late wife, or forms of affection they shared that were unique to their relationship, if he's truly over her and is committed to his new wife).


Summary:

So, in a nutshell:

1) We love and respect Jesus by obeying His commands (and one of which is not to worship Him in the ways of the pagans; if not detrimental, the practices of the pagans are useless, lie about His true nature, and no matter what, will always be an expression of love/respect for the “other god” that the practice originated to honor).

2) the practice of "kissing the hand" and "kissing statues representing a god" is condemned in scripture and present in the pagan spirituality (and idolatrous—thus disobedient—Israelite tradition).

3) Though we are commanded to kiss God's Son, it's not by kissing a statue or our own hand (or anyone else's hand) that we do so.

Considering all of that biblical information, and knowing that there exists the command to not adopt the ways of the nations, it's safe to say that such a practice of venerating God by kissing statues is prohibited by the Father. It is not an acceptable way to show Him love and respect.

note: I am not ignoring the topic of bowing down before the altar, but I did not address it because scriptures are silent on this—they neither speak against, nor for, the act of prostrating before an altar. I don't find that action happening at all in scripture. Neither before the bronze altar nor altar of incense.

That said, please sincerely consider the information presented above. We cannot impose upon God expressions of love and respect that He has prohibited us from adopting in the first place. If we want to love God, then we must do what He likes, things that are in accord with His commands, and not examples of violations of it / sin.
You realize that the different font sizes, styles and spacing you use makes it very difficult to read and sort through your responses, yes? Not an insult or anything, just letting you know that it's an extra step that the brain has to sort through to make sense of things and there for automatically puts your responses into realm of difficult.
On to the topics at hand. First off the golden calf and a statue of Christ are, in fact, quite different circumstances. The golden calf was man by man to worship instead of God. The Latin Catholic Church has their statues to redirect their worship *to* God. (Note: the Byzantine Church does not used statues). These statues are often gifts and made as an artist's form of worship. The Church acknowledges that people are given gifts and those gifts are to be used in worship, therefore, artists make art. The kissing part does not stem from Jewish tradition. It stems from European tradition of kissing the hand of one's monarch.
Also, the analogy about being widowed and what not doesn't work.
1. We don't remarry.
2. my husband dying would not make him my ex-husband. He would be my late husband. We see that we are bound together by God. We do not have vows and therefore no "till death do us part". Death does not make him my ex-husband any more than it would make my mom my ex-mother.
3. You really expect someone to just get over their spouse and burn that stuff without it hurting? Are you without a heart? My uncle has been married to his second wife for 20 years. Both were widowed before marrying and both still consider themselves tied to the first spouses and so will be buried next to their first spouses. They are protestant. This is not a Catholic thing.
4. This is not an issue of having ex-idols or idols who have died. We didn't have those idols to begin with. This is creating Art as an act of worship and using that art to focus. There is very little difference in kissing this and kissing a picture of mom. In the same way, when people show you a picture of their kids and say "these are my kids" you know that they photo itself is not their children, it is a representation of their children. They will still show it off and be proud, even though the kids are 20 miles away and that's just a photo in their pocket.
5. We cannot erase our pasts. Life doesn't work that way.
6. Using that logic, Christ just should have moved on when Lazarus died, rather than mourn him and raise him from the dead. If Christ did not simply move on from the death of his friend, how could anyone just move on life you imply from the death of a lover. My dad's fiancee died suddenly 35 years ago. He still has a plush toy she gave him because she was important to him. My mother knows that it doesn't mean he loves her any less. It doesn't mean that he still clings to the first one. That plush toy sits in the house in a neat little row with a few others that my mother and we have given him over the years. True commitment to a new lover does not mean leaving the deceased completely behind and burning their memory. It means being able to love and accept someone who has baggage and allowing them to take the important stuff with them.
Christ is someone we love with all that we have. We too love his mother. We kiss them to show allegiance. We honour them. We show them off. "Look guys! This is Mama Mary! And Look! It's Jesus! How awesome is that?!"
Y'all wear and tattoo and use dove imagery in lots of stuff. The dove being the representation of the Holy Spirit. I've even seen some kiss their dove charms. I see very little different except for many protestants it has become a fashion accessory.  

[cristobela]

As for the formatting of my post, that was for organization's sake, so that, at a glance, you could differentiate between a bible verse, my own words, and where a new point begins. Don't worry, I didn't take it as an insult. I'll lessen the spacing between topics, and stick to one font size, but the indenting of the bible verses helps to keep me organized.

kattneko

On to the topics at hand. First off the golden calf and a statue of Christ are, in fact, quite different circumstances. The golden calf was man by man to worship instead of God. The Latin Catholic Church has their statues to redirect their worship *to* God. [...]

The circumstance described in Exodus is identical to what you just described. The calf-idol was made for “redirecting worship *to* God” since the image isn't actually God—and the Israelites know it is not actually God.

Listen to the reasoning made by other religions when they explain the reason why they use images of their gods; they don't make images “to worship instead of God” either, but for other reasons—the same reasons you listed.

For instance, in Hinduism (and the following article was written by someone defending Hinduism):

Quote:

Myth No. 2: Hindus are idol worshippers.

Reality: Hindus worship a reminder of God.

No Hindu will say he or she is worshipping an idol. Instead, Hindus believe a physical representation of God – in the form of an idol - helps them focus on an aspect of prayer or meditation. For instance, a person who has just opened up a new business may worship Ganesh, the elephant god who represents success.

Source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/25/9-myths-about-hinduism-debunked/comment-page-1/

or in Buddhism:

Quote:

Although it is customary amongst Buddhists to keep Buddha images and to pay their respects to the Buddha, Buddhists are not idol worshippers. Idolatry generally means erecting images of unknown gods and goddesses in various shapes and sizes and to pray directly to these images. The prayers are a request to the gods for guidance and protection. The gods and goddesses are asked to bestow health, wealth, property and to provide for various needs; they are asked to forgive transgressions.

The 'worshipping' at the Buddha image is quite a different matter. Buddhists revere the image of the Buddha as a gesture to the greatest, wisest, most benevolent, compassionate and holy man who has ever lived in this world. It is a historical fact that this great man actually lived in this world and has done a great service to mankind. The worship of the Buddha really means paying homage, veneration and devotion to Him and what He represents, and not to the stone or metal figure.

The image is a visual aid that helps one to recall the Buddha in the mind and to remember His great qualities which inspired millions of people from generation to generation throughout the civilized world. Buddhists use the statue as a symbol and as an object of concentration to gain a peace of mind. When Buddhists look upon the image of the Buddha, they put aside thoughts of strife and think only of peace, serenity, calmness and tranquillity. The statue enables the mind to recall this great man and inspires devotees to follow His example and instructions. In their mind, the devout Buddhists feel the living presence of the Master. This feeling makes their act of worship become vivid and significant. The serenity of the Buddha image influences and inspires them to observe the right path of conduct and thought.

Source: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/209.htm

They don't think that the image is God. They deny that they're idolatrous. But whose definition of idolatry are they submitting to? Not the bible's. They're submitting to a definition they made up themselves (Hinduism: it's not idolatry as long as we just think of it as representation of God; Buddhism: it's not idolatry as long as it is known person, and it just reminds us of him). But biblically, they're all condemned. Changing the words we use to describe an act, doesn't change what is physically being done: making visual representations of God.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or John, Jesus, Peter, Paul—they did not make images of God in order to redirect their prayers *to* God. They just prayed to God. To invisible-ness.

Out in the battlefield, when Jehoshaphat cried out to God, it was not through a statue; he's in the middle of battle about to get hit by a weapon:

• 2 Chronicles 18:31 (NIV)
  
  31 When the chariot commanders saw Jehoshaphat, they thought, “This is the king of Israel.” So they turned to attack him, but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him. God drew them away from him,

No statue. We pray to God's invisible-ness.

Jesus in the flesh is God's only image and Jesus is not here right now; Jesus in the flesh—not an image/painting/sculpture that we make of Jesus, but Jesus' actual body itself—is the image of the invisible God. His body would be what people would/should kiss, not a sculpture of Him (and I'll get to your photo analogy, but I'm going in order).

• Colossians 1:15 (NIV)
  
  15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

What you're suggesting is, that when YHWH commanded this...

• Deuteronomy 4:15-18 (NIV)
  
  15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.

...that YHWH didn't have pagan practices, like those found in Hinduism and Buddhism, in mind at all...? They bow in front of images, not thinking it's actually the god itself, but just a representation of him or a reminder of his teachings or an object to help them concentrate. We're suppose to be different from the nations: they use images to represent their god, or aspects of their god, or to concentrate, we do not. We have no images/drawings/statues of God to show them. It violates the commands. It is what the nations do, NOT what His holy (set-apart) nation does.

• Leviticus 20:26 (NIV)
  
  26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
  
  
• Exodus 34:17 (NIV)
  
  17 “Do not make any idols.
  
  
• Leviticus 26:1 (NIV)
  
  26 “‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.

Not, “it's okay to bow down as long as you don't think it's Me; but if you think the statue is literally Me, the don't bow down to it”. No, but all bowing in front of idols/images is forbidden. And if the pagans are the ones, in scripture, kissing statues, and it's identified as sin, then we are not to do so—because we are His set-apart nation, set-apart from the world's religious ways, only to conform to what's in accord with YHWH's commands.

God commands us not to make images of Him, even if we're fully aware that the object is not actually Him and He's up in the heavens. Thus why we find the Israelites expressing themselves in this fashion:

• Psalm 115:2-4 (NIV)
  
  2 Why do the nations say,
      “Where is their God?”
  3 Our God is in heaven;
      he does whatever pleases him.
  4 But their idols are silver and gold,
      made by human hands.

The pagans ask, “where is He?” because unlike them, we have zero images of Him to show. They see nothing, so they ask, “where's your God?”. Otherwise they'd assume, “oh that sculpture over there is Him.” Thus, if there was actually something visible to show, they'd have no reason to ask.

Unless Jesus is physically here, or the clouds part and He's coming down, we too have nothing to show the pagans. Unless He shows up in their dreams or they themselves see a direct vision of Him, there is nothing to show beyond descriptions in the prophets writings, and our own behavior. And that's just it: we're the ones who are suppose to be molded as the clay in His hands, not clay/paint/graphite in our hands molding a picture of Him.

• Romans 8:29 (NIV)
  
  29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
  
  
• Isaiah 64:8 (NIV)
  
  8 Yet you, Lord, are our Father.
      We are the clay, you are the potter;
      we are all the work of your hand.

So, there is zero reason for a Christian to make an image of God: first and foremost, it's prohibited by the commands; obedient worshipers don't make images of God and there's no such thing as “only this type of bowing before an idol is sin”; such a limited definition is not coming from the commands, the commands encompass more, even the types of bowing/worship of images we find in Hinduism and Buddhism where they're not worshiping an image in place of God; the idol only serves as a reminder of the one they worship, as a concentration aid, expression of veneration, etc); second, there's no need to "redirect our worship *to* God" through a statue in order to connect to him, be heard, or focus better; like everyone else in scripture, we pray to invisible-ness, or God's actual manifestation in front of us (not an illustration). We cannot copy the pagans who are the ones who make visual images of their gods to concentrate as they pray, to bow down to them as a form of veneration. They do not believe the statue itself is god, even if there are individuals who do, that's not the only reason these pagan nations / pagan religions bow down to idols. God definitely had those nations in mind too when He tells us not to bow down before idols because we are not to be like the rest of the nations.

• Leviticus 20:26 (NIV)
  
  26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
  
  
• Deuteronomy 14:1-2 (NIV)
  
  14 You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, 2 for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.

kattneko

[...] (Note: the Byzantine Church does not used statues). These statues are often gifts and made as an artist's form of worship. The Church acknowledges that people are given gifts and those gifts are to be used in worship, therefore, artists make art.

Here's the problem: who gave the artist permission to worship God any way they see fit? It wasn't God. That's not in line with what God instructs: if God says, “do not make images of Me”, then the artist cannot say, “but it's okay to disobey Your command God, and make images of You, because I'm doing it to honor You; You submit to my commands and definition, not me submitting to Yours”.

He desires obedience, not a voluntary offering that has us violating His commands in the process—thus disobeying Him in the process of “honoring” Him.

Take King Saul for example: YHWH told him to annihilate the Amalekites, leave nothing and no one alive in their territory; King Saul insists he had been obedient and is honoring God, with his mouth, but the evidence of his actions—what was literally done—spoke against him. He did leave something alive. His excuse: so I can worship God with it; I spared the best of the best. What he literally did to honor God did not comply with God's instruction, ergo it was disobedient—no matter how hard he tried to justify it:

• 1 Samuel 15:13-25 (NIV)
  
  13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”
  
  14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
  
  15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
  
  16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”
  
  “Tell me,” Saul replied.
  
  17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”
  
  20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”
  
  22 But Samuel replied:
  
  “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
      as much as in obeying the Lord?
  To obey is better than sacrifice,
      and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
  23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
      and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
  Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
      he has rejected you as king.”
  
  24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”
  

YHWH says: kill it all.

King Saul says: I did destroy them all, we just left the king and some animals alive...for you God.

(a.k.a. we do obey, but we do not obey here, however it's okay, because we use it to honor God).

King Saul does not want to see his own disobedience. He keeps insisting that He is obeying, despite his deviating from what God says. King Saul is justifying that it's okay to deviate from God's instruction if the deviation, in one's own eyes, will honor God—though it won't honor God according to God's command. That is self-deception.

• Judges 17:6 (KJV)
  
  6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
  
  
• Judges 2:11 (NIV)
  
  11 Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals.
  
  
• Proverbs 14:12 (NIV)
  
  12 There is a way that appears to be right,
        but in the end it leads to death.

It is possible for the Israelites—God's set-apart people, set apart from the world's ways—to think they're doing right, but in God's eyes, their acts are evil, in violation of His commands, they are acting worldly.

Likewise, King Saul disobeyed God's definition of obedience in order to obey man's definition of “obedience to God”. Instead of God's instruction, according to how God says He wanted to be obeyed, King Saul does his own thing, but deceives himself into thinking he's obeying because he incorporates some elements of the instruction, and the disobedient thing he wants to do, he dedicates it to God.

Not surprisingly, people use that same unstable twisting on the apostle Paul's letters (and Jesus' own words). I will link to this thread for you to read later: [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored ]. The ignored details in Paul's epistles are on page 2, but I recommend starting with the ignored detail's in the gospels documenting Jesus' words. This type of lawlessness is condemned throughout scripture, from beginning to end.

Slight tangent aside:

So, no, artists cannot make images of God and excuse it in the name of art. It's no longer being done in the name of YHWH / in obedience to what He says. The pagans make visual representations of their God—for whatever reason, but to actually worship it as god, in place of God, is NOT the only reason they do so. So we cannot merely define idolatry as, “bowing down to a statue and thinking it is actually God, and worshiping it in place of God”. That's too limiting. The commands against idol making, in the bible, identifies much more than that as “idolatry”. Following other instructions, even in YHWH's Name, even in partial obedience to something found in scripture, is also idolatry wherever it is that you start deviating, as King Saul's example demonstrates. You don't have to think the statue is deity in order to commit idolatry: the Buddhists think Buddha is just a mere man, and his statue / image is just a reminder of his teachings, a visual aid to concentrate. Their atheistic bowing down before images is still idolatry. We can make idols out of philosophies and material things too, let alone visual representations of God themselves being idols in YHWH's eyes. Idolatry encompasses so much more in scripture.

Put even more simply: the moment we disagree with YHWH, deviate from His definitions, we're in idolatry. Something has become more important than how He defines a thing (usually because it looks good, smells good, tastes good, feels good, sounds good).

• Romans 8:7-8 (NIV)
  
  7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

He's no longer God the moment we give in to the flesh. We're worshiping something else, or some other way, not His way. Making images of God is not acceptable, and the obedient Israelites did not make them.

kattneko

The kissing part does not stem from Jewish tradition. It stems from European tradition of kissing the hand of one's monarch.

So, it is true: it has to do with kissing kings. Wherever the tradition came from, however, my point still stands: the King is not here. To kiss the Son, as the Psalms command, is about kissing the King. Not kissing statues/images of Him. There should be no images made of Him by our own hands. Making images of our Creator, the one we worship, is a pagan practice. We're not to be like them.

kattneko

Also, the analogy about being widowed and what not doesn't work. 
1. We don't remarry. 
2. my husband dying would not make him my ex-husband. He would be my late husband. We see that we are bound together by God. We do not have vows and therefore no "till death do us part". Death does not make him my ex-husband any more than it would make my mom my ex-mother. 

Again, you're allowing self-imposed traditions to override the reality that God conveys through His commands / law:

• Romans 7:3 (NIV)
  
  3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Remarriage is a reality. And death is the only thing that cleanly breaks off relationship. That's what I'm getting at when I saw “ex-”. She's no longer his wife and he's no longer her husband. The terms “ex-” or “late wife/ late husband” aren't from the bible, but I'm referring to the biblical concept of no longer being one's spouse. Death does separate you, thus why I used a widow as the example. And as I'll show below, when I get to the relevant number, all of us are in idolatrous (disobedient) practices before coming to God. We break up with the world's ways in order to live holy lives—lives set-apart from worldly ways—from the inside out.

kattneko

3. You really expect someone to just get over their spouse and burn that stuff without it hurting? Are you without a heart? My uncle has been married to his second wife for 20 years. Both were widowed before marrying and both still consider themselves tied to the first spouses and so will be buried next to their first spouses. They are protestant. This is not a Catholic thing.

God is not like us.

And that is how God wants us to relate to Him regarding our past relationships with the practices of our culture, even religions in His Name: if it violates His commands, then we let go of all affections for the cultural/religious practice. If the belief/practice—even if it comes in His Name—expresses affection to another god in its very origin, then we let it go. If it disagrees with His commands, we let it go / not practice it anymore. This is about disobedient practices. Even if you inherited it in the name of Jesus, it can be disobedient to what the Father and Son actually said. And if it violates what He said, then it's no longer God being worshiped, but some man-made rule/interpretation of spirituality that disagrees with God's instructions.

kattneko

4. This is not an issue of having ex-idols or idols who have died. We didn't have those idols to begin with. This is creating Art as an act of worship and using that art to focus.

But you have the idol's practice, even if you don't have the idol. It belongs to the idol, even if someone in our Christian past tried to put Jesus in it; it does become an issue of honoring idols. I drew the analogy from the prophets Jeremiah and Hosea where God gives a similar analogy. So, yes, the analogy has to do with having idols/ex-idols (idolatry, in essence, is to have disobedient practices in honor of the Living God in our life). We need to abandon them so we can be faithful spouses to YHWH.

• Jeremiah 3:1 (NIV)
  
  3 “If a man divorces his wife
      and she leaves him and marries another man,
  should he return to her again?
      Would not the land be completely defiled?
  But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—
      would you now return to me?”
          declares the Lord.
  
  
• Hosea 2:2 (NIV)
  
  2 “Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,
      for she is not my wife,
      and I am not her husband.
  Let her remove the adulterous look from her face
      and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
  
  
• Hosea 2:13 (NIV)
  
  13 I will punish her for the days
      she burned incense to the Baals;
  she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
      and went after her lovers,
      but me she forgot,”
          declares the Lord.

How do you forget God?

• Deuteronomy 4:23 (NIV)
  
  23 Be careful not to forget the covenant of the Lord your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the Lord your God has forbidden.

We forget God by forgetting how to worship Him the way He said, and going off to do some other thing, even in His Name. Like the Pharisees who denied the Law and the Prophets on certain points. They were lawless. And Jesus corrected them (which I explained in both the "Ash Wednesday" thread and the "Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored" thread). Thus in Hosea, YHWH promising to find a way to get the woman [His people] back to her Husband:

• Hosea 2:16-20 (NIV)
  
  16 “In that day,” declares the Lord,
        “you will call me ‘my husband’;
        you will no longer call me ‘my master.[a]’
  17 I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips;
        no longer will their names be invoked.
  18 In that day I will make a covenant for them
        with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky
        and the creatures that move along the ground.
      Bow and sword and battle
        I will abolish from the land,
        so that all may lie down in safety.
  19 I will betroth you to me forever;
        I will betroth you in[b] righteousness and justice,
        in[c] love and compassion.
  20 I will betroth you in[d] faithfulness,
        and you will acknowledge the Lord.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Hosea 2:16 Hebrew baal
  b. Hosea 2:19 Or with
  c. Hosea 2:19 Or with
  d. Hosea 2:20 Or with

It is unlawful to get back with a woman you divorced, if she went and joined herself to another man (even if the new husband died or divorced her later) according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (and this is what Jeremiah 3:1, that I quoted above, is alluding to).

• Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (NIV)
  
  24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

So God comes and dies so we can covenant with Him again faithfully. Death is what annuls marriage. The Israelites had joined themselves to Baal. He couldn't take her back.

• Romans 7:2-3 (NIV)
  
  2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.
  

And we die and become born-again too, made new. Both of us are totally released from our past relationships via death.

So, the other lovers, the other gods we've been in covenant with, the other spirits we have become intimate with, whose practices we have become one with (even in Jesus' name), the disobedient spiritual ways we have given honor to. That is what I'm referring to. Giving honor to, and serving the practices of, other gods (even in the name of YHWH) is not honoring YHWH but the other gods. They are expressions of unfaithfulness. The very practice of having an image of God “to focus on” comes from the other religions, not the Most High's commands. Same for having statues, images, figurines, what have you, to “redirect worship *to* God”. That comes from the pagans. His commands speak against making an image of Him. The obedient Israelites had no images to show, so neither should we. It's a practice that shows respect for other religions (thus not conducive to loving God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, because parts of us are showing love for cultural practices that disagree with His commands).

kattneko

There is very little difference in kissing this and kissing a picture of mom. In the same way, when people show you a picture of their kids and say "these are my kids" you know that they photo itself is not their children, it is a representation of their children. They will still show it off and be proud, even though the kids are 20 miles away and that's just a photo in their pocket.

On the contrary: there is a big difference. God did not command against making images of your earthly parents or your earthly children. He prohibited making images of Him, our Creator.

Second, He has a command to not adopt the practices of the pagans: the “kissing of the statue” tradition in veneration of the god that the idol represents, comes from the pagans—as I showed from scripture. It has no business being a part of a Christian's life at any point in time (let alone the Israelite's life of yesteryear, thus why God spoke of them being sinful when they did so). We can neither make an image of God, let alone kiss an image of God, and be in obedience to those commands that say: do not make images of Me and do not adopt the ways of the nations, nor adopt them and make Me the focus behind it.

kattneko

5. We cannot erase our pasts. Life doesn't work that way.

We're commanded to erase all affections for our past life. That would include letting go of idolatrous practices (even if the idolatrous practice has been adopted to make YHWH / Jesus the focus behind it).

• Ephesians 4:21-24 (NIV)
  
  21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
  
  
• Ezekiel 36:25-27 (NIV)
  
  25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

As has already been established, God considers "idols" as our other lovers—the things that win our affections and make us walk contrary to His commands. The analogy I described is about God as the husband, and the idols/idolatrous practices [disobedient practices] as the “ex”-lover. We become born-again, thus receive new desires, new heart, and new mind, that wants to please God the way He says He wants to be loved/obeyed/worshiped.

Do we remember that we were once idolators? Yes. Do we express affection for those old ways and practices that contradict His commands? No. Do we continue to practice those customs as long as we make it about God? No. We remove them from our lives. Again, God is not like us. He DOES expect us to cut off religiously-significant practices of our culture (and religion) if they violate what He defined as obedient. We cannot express love to our other lovers if we're with Him. He's jealous. Those practices should have never found their way into the Church. The converting Gentiles were suppose to leave those practices behind, not incorporate God into it—because He said not to.

kattneko

6. Using that logic, Christ just should have moved on when Lazarus died, rather than mourn him and raise him from the dead.

Raising Lazarus from the dead isn't an example of the analogy: the analogy is about removing idolatrous practices from our lives that our new spouse doesn't approve of. And because we love our new spouse more than our past life, we remove the practice upon His say so [and He says so before even marrying us; it's part of the contract/covenant; the covenant, the commands, are the marriage vow]. If He says, “I don't want you to use the practices that the nations use to honor their gods in your honoring of me”, then we need to let them go—and/or not adopt them at all, ever, at any time. Kissing statues, and using an image of God to focus our prayers better, came from the pagans. Not the commands of the Most High.

Just because hundreds of years have passed, that does not legitimize the disobedient practice/act that became tradition (it's essentially adopting the practices of pagan idols and making the Living God the center of it). It was disobedient the moment they did it, and the act continues to be disobedient today. Even if it is full blown acceptable tradition by the people, going around in Jesus' name, it will never be acceptable in God's eyes. Like King Jeroboam's sin—despite generations upon generations having passed, God always described his sin, and people practicing the now established tradition, as, “He followed completely the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols.” [link to this phrases' appearance throughout the book of Kings, long after Jeroboam dies, many kings later, all the way until the exile]. In short: Jeroboam didn't want the reign to go back to Solomon's descendants, so he made idols of YHWH (in the form of a calf, made two of them, one in Dan, one in Bethel) so people wouldn't have to travel back to Jerusalem in the southern kingdom of Judah, but worship in the northern kingdom of Israel (and he made counterfeit dates, and counterfeit priests, for legitimate holy appointments of God). You can read [1 Kings 12:25-33] to see how it all began.

kattneko

If Christ did not simply move on from the death of his friend, how could anyone just move on life you imply from the death of a lover. My dad's fiancee died suddenly 35 years ago. He still has a plush toy she gave him because she was important to him. My mother knows that it doesn't mean he loves her any less. It doesn't mean that he still clings to the first one. That plush toy sits in the house in a neat little row with a few others that my mother and we have given him over the years. True commitment to a new lover does not mean leaving the deceased completely behind and burning their memory. It means being able to love and accept someone who has baggage and allowing them to take the important stuff with them.

This is why the High Priest doesn't marry widows or divorcees, just virgins.

• Leviticus 21:10-15 (NIV)
  
  10 “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt[a] or tear his clothes. 11 He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, 12 nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the Lord.
  
  13 “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. 14 He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people,15 so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’”
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Leviticus 21:10 Or not uncover his head

We have past baggage? We're not fit.

Christ is our High Priest.

• Hebrews 4:14 (NIV)
  
  14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Hebrews 4:14 Greek has gone through the heavens
  
  
  
• 2 Corinthians 11:2 (NIV)
  
  2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

Christ will not marry people who value their past baggage (culture / disobedient religious practices) more than Him / more than what He demands out of the relationship. He's marrying the pure virgin, the one who is wholeheartedly devoted to Him only and practices that honor Him only. She knows no one else; she has united with no one else, no other spirits, nor affections for the practices of those other spirits. Our past affections can defile our relationship with Him and defile the disciples we make. We're suppose to be wholeheartedly His and only His.

Do you forget that our God is a jealous God? If Christ married (or agreed to marry) someone, and she wants to continue in the practices of her culture (even things getting passed around under “Jesus culture”), despite them violating His commands, how is that an expression of love towards Christ? It's not an expression of love for Christ, but love for culture and the ideas of man. We can't love anything more than Christ.

• Matthew 10:37-38 (NIV)
  
  37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
  
  
• Luke 14:26 (NIV)
  
  26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

So if a family member values a practice (cultural or religious) even though it violates God's commands, who are you going to side with? If you side with the tradition that contradicts His command, you're not loving Him, but the practice. The practice / idea becomes your idol, the one you submit to, instead of submitting to His instructions. His definition of things should reign supreme.

• Matthew 15:3 (NIV)
  
  3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

kattneko

Christ is someone we love with all that we have.

We love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. But He doesn't want to be worshipped / loved with everything at our hand's grasp, with everything available in the world, in any and every way we see fit. We're only to express love to Him the way He says is appropriate and the way He desires. In accord with His every command.

kattneko

We too love his mother. We kiss them to show allegiance.

No, you kiss a statue OF them. That's not the same as kissing the Son. Kissing a statue/idol/image/your own hand, violates the commands to not adopt the spiritual practices of the nations (and I demonstrated from scripture that this practice belongs to the nations, not YHWH's set-apart nation).

The One we show allegiance to is God. And it's not by kissing a statue that we show allegiance.

• Luke 11:27-28 (NIV)
  
  27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
  
  28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

kattneko

Y'all wear and tattoo and use dove imagery in lots of stuff. The dove being the representation of the Holy Spirit. I've even seen some kiss their dove charms. I see very little different except for many protestants it has become a fashion accessory.

I do not wear, use tattoos, or make depictions of the Holy Spirit. Nor kiss charms.

First of all,

• Leviticus 19:28 (NIV)
  
  28 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

The pagans do that. The skin is part of the immune system and what protects us from the sun and the environment around us. I will not compromise the function God gave that organ just because of a practice in my culture that seeks to please the lust of the eyes by perforating it with inks/pigments/dyes or by scarifcation, or because people give the tattoo a spiritual meaning in honor of God or of a god. God said no. Even if it becomes popular amongst Christians, I will not do that. It is a sin (a transgression of the law), not an appropriate interaction with creation.

I will not kiss statues or charms, because I now know kissing inanimate objects and your own hand in veneration of a deified thing is a practice that belongs to the pagans. And God said not to copy them. Though it may be a socially-acceptable way to express affection to God in religious circles, God says no. God is who I side with, thus I side with His commands, not religious circles / schools of thought that nullify the words coming out of His mouth.

And I will not draw images of the Godhead. Or use them as a means to focus or redirect my prayers to them. That is not obedient to the commands. We have no use for images of God. I pray to the invisible, as commanded.

The disobedient practices, what deviates from scripture, is what I'm condemning, regardless of who does it (protestant and catholic).  

[kattneko]

cristobela

As for the formatting of my post, that was for organization's sake, so that, at a glance, you could differentiate between a bible verse, my own words, and where a new point begins. Don't worry, I didn't take it as an insult. I'll lessen the spacing between topics, and stick to one font size, but the indenting of the bible verses helps to keep me organized.

kattneko

On to the topics at hand. First off the golden calf and a statue of Christ are, in fact, quite different circumstances. The golden calf was man by man to worship instead of God. The Latin Catholic Church has their statues to redirect their worship *to* God. [...]

The circumstance described in Exodus is identical to what you just described. The calf-idol was made for “redirecting worship *to* God” since the image isn't actually God—and the Israelites know it is not actually God.

Listen to the reasoning made by other religions when they explain the reason why they use images of their gods; they don't make images “to worship instead of God” either, but for other reasons—the same reasons you listed.

For instance, in Hinduism (and the following article was written by someone defending Hinduism):

Quote:

Myth No. 2: Hindus are idol worshippers.

Reality: Hindus worship a reminder of God.

No Hindu will say he or she is worshipping an idol. Instead, Hindus believe a physical representation of God – in the form of an idol - helps them focus on an aspect of prayer or meditation. For instance, a person who has just opened up a new business may worship Ganesh, the elephant god who represents success.

Source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/25/9-myths-about-hinduism-debunked/comment-page-1/

or in Buddhism:

Quote:

Although it is customary amongst Buddhists to keep Buddha images and to pay their respects to the Buddha, Buddhists are not idol worshippers. Idolatry generally means erecting images of unknown gods and goddesses in various shapes and sizes and to pray directly to these images. The prayers are a request to the gods for guidance and protection. The gods and goddesses are asked to bestow health, wealth, property and to provide for various needs; they are asked to forgive transgressions.

The 'worshipping' at the Buddha image is quite a different matter. Buddhists revere the image of the Buddha as a gesture to the greatest, wisest, most benevolent, compassionate and holy man who has ever lived in this world. It is a historical fact that this great man actually lived in this world and has done a great service to mankind. The worship of the Buddha really means paying homage, veneration and devotion to Him and what He represents, and not to the stone or metal figure.

The image is a visual aid that helps one to recall the Buddha in the mind and to remember His great qualities which inspired millions of people from generation to generation throughout the civilized world. Buddhists use the statue as a symbol and as an object of concentration to gain a peace of mind. When Buddhists look upon the image of the Buddha, they put aside thoughts of strife and think only of peace, serenity, calmness and tranquillity. The statue enables the mind to recall this great man and inspires devotees to follow His example and instructions. In their mind, the devout Buddhists feel the living presence of the Master. This feeling makes their act of worship become vivid and significant. The serenity of the Buddha image influences and inspires them to observe the right path of conduct and thought.

Source: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/209.htm

They don't think that the image is God. They deny that they're idolatrous. But whose definition of idolatry are they submitting to? Not the bible's. They're submitting to a definition they made up themselves (Hinduism: it's not idolatry as long as we just think of it as representation of God; Buddhism: it's not idolatry as long as it is known person, and it just reminds us of him). But biblically, they're all condemned. Changing the words we use to describe an act, doesn't change what is physically being done: making visual representations of God.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or John, Jesus, Peter, Paul—they did not make images of God in order to redirect their prayers *to* God. They just prayed to God. To invisible-ness.

Out in the battlefield, when Jehoshaphat cried out to God, it was not through a statue; he's in the middle of battle about to get hit by a weapon:

• 2 Chronicles 18:31 (NIV)
  
  31 When the chariot commanders saw Jehoshaphat, they thought, “This is the king of Israel.” So they turned to attack him, but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the Lord helped him. God drew them away from him,

No statue. We pray to God's invisible-ness.

Jesus in the flesh is God's only image and Jesus is not here right now; Jesus in the flesh—not an image/painting/sculpture that we make of Jesus, but Jesus' actual body itself—is the image of the invisible God. His body would be what people would/should kiss, not a sculpture of Him (and I'll get to your photo analogy, but I'm going in order).

• Colossians 1:15 (NIV)
  
  15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

What you're suggesting is, that when YHWH commanded this...

• Deuteronomy 4:15-18 (NIV)
  
  15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.

...that YHWH didn't have pagan practices, like those found in Hinduism and Buddhism, in mind at all...? They bow in front of images, not thinking it's actually the god itself, but just a representation of him or a reminder of his teachings or an object to help them concentrate. We're suppose to be different from the nations: they use images to represent their god, or aspects of their god, or to concentrate, we do not. We have no images/drawings/statues of God to show them. It violates the commands. It is what the nations do, NOT what His holy (set-apart) nation does.

• Leviticus 20:26 (NIV)
  
  26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
  
  
• Exodus 34:17 (NIV)
  
  17 “Do not make any idols.
  
  
• Leviticus 26:1 (NIV)
  
  26 “‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.

Not, “it's okay to bow down as long as you don't think it's Me; but if you think the statue is literally Me, the don't bow down to it”. No, but all bowing in front of idols/images is forbidden. And if the pagans are the ones, in scripture, kissing statues, and it's identified as sin, then we are not to do so—because we are His set-apart nation, set-apart from the world's religious ways, only to conform to what's in accord with YHWH's commands.

God commands us not to make images of Him, even if we're fully aware that the object is not actually Him and He's up in the heavens. Thus why we find the Israelites expressing themselves in this fashion:

• Psalm 115:2-4 (NIV)
  
  2 Why do the nations say,
      “Where is their God?”
  3 Our God is in heaven;
      he does whatever pleases him.
  4 But their idols are silver and gold,
      made by human hands.

The pagans ask, “where is He?” because unlike them, we have zero images of Him to show. They see nothing, so they ask, “where's your God?”. Otherwise they'd assume, “oh that sculpture over there is Him.” Thus, if there was actually something visible to show, they'd have no reason to ask.

Unless Jesus is physically here, or the clouds part and He's coming down, we too have nothing to show the pagans. Unless He shows up in their dreams or they themselves see a direct vision of Him, there is nothing to show beyond descriptions in the prophets writings, and our own behavior. And that's just it: we're the ones who are suppose to be molded as the clay in His hands, not clay/paint/graphite in our hands molding a picture of Him.

• Romans 8:29 (NIV)
  
  29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
  
  
• Isaiah 64:8 (NIV)
  
  8 Yet you, Lord, are our Father.
      We are the clay, you are the potter;
      we are all the work of your hand.

So, there is zero reason for a Christian to make an image of God: first and foremost, it's prohibited by the commands; obedient worshipers don't make images of God and there's no such thing as “only this type of bowing before an idol is sin”; such a limited definition is not coming from the commands, the commands encompass more, even the types of bowing/worship of images we find in Hinduism and Buddhism where they're not worshiping an image in place of God; the idol only serves as a reminder of the one they worship, as a concentration aid, expression of veneration, etc); second, there's no need to "redirect our worship *to* God" through a statue in order to connect to him, be heard, or focus better; like everyone else in scripture, we pray to invisible-ness, or God's actual manifestation in front of us (not an illustration). We cannot copy the pagans who are the ones who make visual images of their gods to concentrate as they pray, to bow down to them as a form of veneration. They do not believe the statue itself is god, even if there are individuals who do, that's not the only reason these pagan nations / pagan religions bow down to idols. God definitely had those nations in mind too when He tells us not to bow down before idols because we are not to be like the rest of the nations.

• Leviticus 20:26 (NIV)
  
  26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
  
  
• Deuteronomy 14:1-2 (NIV)
  
  14 You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, 2 for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.

kattneko

[...] (Note: the Byzantine Church does not used statues). These statues are often gifts and made as an artist's form of worship. The Church acknowledges that people are given gifts and those gifts are to be used in worship, therefore, artists make art.

Here's the problem: who gave the artist permission to worship God any way they see fit? It wasn't God. That's not in line with what God instructs: if God says, “do not make images of Me”, then the artist cannot say, “but it's okay to disobey Your command God, and make images of You, because I'm doing it to honor You; You submit to my commands and definition, not me submitting to Yours”.

He desires obedience, not a voluntary offering that has us violating His commands in the process—thus disobeying Him in the process of “honoring” Him.

Take King Saul for example: YHWH told him to annihilate the Amalekites, leave nothing and no one alive in their territory; King Saul insists he had been obedient and is honoring God, with his mouth, but the evidence of his actions—what was literally done—spoke against him. He did leave something alive. His excuse: so I can worship God with it; I spared the best of the best. What he literally did to honor God did not comply with God's instruction, ergo it was disobedient—no matter how hard he tried to justify it:

• 1 Samuel 15:13-25 (NIV)
  
  13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”
  
  14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
  
  15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
  
  16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”
  
  “Tell me,” Saul replied.
  
  17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”
  
  20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”
  
  22 But Samuel replied:
  
  “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
      as much as in obeying the Lord?
  To obey is better than sacrifice,
      and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
  23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
      and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
  Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
      he has rejected you as king.”
  
  24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”
  

YHWH says: kill it all.

King Saul says: I did destroy them all, we just left the king and some animals alive...for you God.

(a.k.a. we do obey, but we do not obey here, however it's okay, because we use it to honor God).

King Saul does not want to see his own disobedience. He keeps insisting that He is obeying, despite his deviating from what God says. King Saul is justifying that it's okay to deviate from God's instruction if the deviation, in one's own eyes, will honor God—though it won't honor God according to God's command. That is self-deception.

• Judges 17:6 (KJV)
  
  6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
  
  
• Judges 2:11 (NIV)
  
  11 Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals.
  
  
• Proverbs 14:12 (NIV)
  
  12 There is a way that appears to be right,
        but in the end it leads to death.

It is possible for the Israelites—God's set-apart people, set apart from the world's ways—to think they're doing right, but in God's eyes, their acts are evil, in violation of His commands, they are acting worldly.

Likewise, King Saul disobeyed God's definition of obedience in order to obey man's definition of “obedience to God”. Instead of God's instruction, according to how God says He wanted to be obeyed, King Saul does his own thing, but deceives himself into thinking he's obeying because he incorporates some elements of the instruction, and the disobedient thing he wants to do, he dedicates it to God.

Not surprisingly, people use that same unstable twisting on the apostle Paul's letters (and Jesus' own words). I will link to this thread for you to read later: [Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored ]. The ignored details in Paul's epistles are on page 2, but I recommend starting with the ignored detail's in Jesus' writings. This type of lawlessness is condemned throughout scripture, from beginning to end.

Slight tangent aside:

So, no, artists cannot make images of God and excuse it in the name of art. It's no longer being done in the name of YHWH / in obedience to what He says. The pagans make visual representations of their God—for whatever reason, but to actually worship it as god, in place of God, is NOT the only reason they do so. So we cannot merely define idolatry as, “bowing down to a statue and thinking it is actually God, and worshiping it in place of God”. That's too limiting. The commands against idol making, in the bible, identifies much more than that as “idolatry”. Following other instructions, even in YHWH's Name, even in partial obedience to something found in scripture, is also idolatry wherever it is that you start deviating, as King Saul's example demonstrates. You don't have to think the statue is deity in order to commit idolatry: the Buddhists think Buddha is just a mere man, and his statue / image is just a reminder of his teachings, a visual aid to concentrate. Their atheistic bowing down before images is still idolatry. We can make idols out of philosophies and material things too, let alone visual representations of God themselves being idols in YHWH's eyes. Idolatry encompasses so much more in scripture.

Put even more simply: the moment we disagree with YHWH, deviate from His definitions, we're in idolatry. Something has become more important than how He defines a thing (usually because it looks good, smells good, tastes good, feels good, sounds good).

• Romans 8:7-8 (NIV)
  
  7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

He's no longer God the moment we give in to the flesh. We're worshiping something else, or some other way, not His way. Making images of God is not acceptable, and the obedient Israelites did not make them.

kattneko

The kissing part does not stem from Jewish tradition. It stems from European tradition of kissing the hand of one's monarch.

So, it is true: it has to do with kissing kings. Wherever the tradition came from, however, my point still stands: the King is not here. To kiss the Son, as the Psalms command, is about kissing the King. Not kissing statues/images of Him. There should be no images made of Him by our own hands. Making images of our Creator, the one we worship, is a pagan practice. We're not to be like them.

kattneko

Also, the analogy about being widowed and what not doesn't work. 
1. We don't remarry. 
2. my husband dying would not make him my ex-husband. He would be my late husband. We see that we are bound together by God. We do not have vows and therefore no "till death do us part". Death does not make him my ex-husband any more than it would make my mom my ex-mother. 

Again, you're allowing self-imposed traditions to override the reality that God conveys through His commands / law:

• Romans 7:3 (NIV)
  
  3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Remarriage is a reality. And death is the only thing that cleanly breaks off relationship. That's what I'm getting at when I saw “ex-”. She's no longer his wife and he's no longer her husband. The terms “ex-” or “late wife/ late husband” aren't from the bible, but I'm referring to the biblical concept of no longer being one's spouse. Death does separate you, thus why I used a widow as the example. And as I'll show below, when I get to the relevant number, all of us are in idolatrous (disobedient) practices before coming to God. We break up with the world's ways in order to live holy lives—lives set-apart from worldly ways—from the inside out.

kattneko

3. You really expect someone to just get over their spouse and burn that stuff without it hurting? Are you without a heart? My uncle has been married to his second wife for 20 years. Both were widowed before marrying and both still consider themselves tied to the first spouses and so will be buried next to their first spouses. They are protestant. This is not a Catholic thing.

God is not like us.

And that is how God wants us to relate to Him regarding our past relationships with the practices of our culture, even religions in His Name: if it violates His commands, then we let go of all affections for the cultural/religious practice. If the belief/practice—even if it comes in His Name—expresses affection to another god in its very origin, then we let it go. If it disagrees with His commands, we let it go / not practice it anymore. This is about disobedient practices. Even if you inherited it in the name of Jesus, it can be disobedient to what the Father and Son actually said. And if it violates what He said, then it's no longer God being worshiped, but some man-made rule/interpretation of spirituality that disagrees with God's instructions.

kattneko

4. This is not an issue of having ex-idols or idols who have died. We didn't have those idols to begin with. This is creating Art as an act of worship and using that art to focus.

But you have the idol's practice, even if you don't have the idol. It belongs to the idol, even if someone in our Christian past tried to put Jesus in it; it does become an issue of honoring idols. I drew the analogy from the prophets Jeremiah and Hosea where God gives a similar analogy. So, yes, the analogy has to do with having idols/ex-idols (idolatry, in essence, is to have disobedient practices in honor of the Living God in our life). We need to abandon them so we can be faithful spouses to YHWH.

• Jeremiah 3:1 (NIV)
  
  3 “If a man divorces his wife
      and she leaves him and marries another man,
  should he return to her again?
      Would not the land be completely defiled?
  But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—
      would you now return to me?”
          declares the Lord.
  
  
• Hosea 2:2 (NIV)
  
  2 “Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,
      for she is not my wife,
      and I am not her husband.
  Let her remove the adulterous look from her face
      and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
  
  
• Hosea 2:13 (NIV)
  
  13 I will punish her for the days
      she burned incense to the Baals;
  she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
      and went after her lovers,
      but me she forgot,”
          declares the Lord.

How do you forget God?

• Deuteronomy 4:23 (NIV)
  
  23 Be careful not to forget the covenant of the Lord your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the Lord your God has forbidden.

We forget God by forgetting how to worship Him the way He said, and going off to do some other thing, even in His Name. Like the Pharisees who denied the Law and the Prophets on certain points. They were lawless. And Jesus corrected them (which I explained in both the "Ash Wednesday" thread and the "Details in the New Testament that Get Ignored" thread). Thus in Hosea, YHWH promising to find a way to get the woman [His people] back to her Husband:

• Hosea 2:16-20 (NIV)
  
  16 “In that day,” declares the Lord,
        “you will call me ‘my husband’;
        you will no longer call me ‘my master.[a]’
  17 I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips;
        no longer will their names be invoked.
  18 In that day I will make a covenant for them
        with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky
        and the creatures that move along the ground.
      Bow and sword and battle
        I will abolish from the land,
        so that all may lie down in safety.
  19 I will betroth you to me forever;
        I will betroth you in[b] righteousness and justice,
        in[c] love and compassion.
  20 I will betroth you in[d] faithfulness,
        and you will acknowledge the Lord.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Hosea 2:16 Hebrew baal
  b. Hosea 2:19 Or with
  c. Hosea 2:19 Or with
  d. Hosea 2:20 Or with

It is unlawful to get back with a woman you divorced, if she went and joined herself to another man (even if the new husband died or divorced her later) according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (and this is what Jeremiah 3:1, that I quoted above, is alluding to).

• Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (NIV)
  
  24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

So God comes and dies so we can covenant with Him again faithfully. Death is what annuls marriage. The Israelites had joined themselves to Baal. He couldn't take her back.

• Romans 7:2-3 (NIV)
  
  2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.
  

And we die and become born-again too, made new. Both of us are totally released from our past relationships via death.

So, the other lovers, the other gods we've been in covenant with, the other spirits we have become intimate with, whose practices we have become one with (even in Jesus' name), the disobedient spiritual ways we have given honor to. That is what I'm referring to. Giving honor to, and serving the practices of, other gods (even in the name of YHWH) is not honoring YHWH but the other gods. They are expressions of unfaithfulness. The very practice of having an image of God “to focus on” comes from the other religions, not the Most High's commands. Same for having statues, images, figurines, what have you, to “redirect worship *to* God”. That comes from the pagans. His commands speak against making an image of Him. The obedient Israelites had no images to show, so neither should we. It's a practice that shows respect for other religions (thus not conducive to loving God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, because parts of us are showing love for cultural practices that disagree with His commands).

kattneko

There is very little difference in kissing this and kissing a picture of mom. In the same way, when people show you a picture of their kids and say "these are my kids" you know that they photo itself is not their children, it is a representation of their children. They will still show it off and be proud, even though the kids are 20 miles away and that's just a photo in their pocket.

On the contrary: there is a big difference. God did not command against making images of your earthly parents or your earthly children. He prohibited making images of Him, our Creator.

Second, He has a command to not adopt the practices of the pagans: the “kissing of the statue” tradition in veneration of the god that the idol represents, comes from the pagans—as I showed from scripture. It has no business being a part of a Christian's life at any point in time (let alone the Israelite's life of yesteryear, thus why God spoke of them being sinful when they did so). We can neither make an image of God, let alone kiss an image of God, and be in obedience to those commands that say: do not make images of Me and do not adopt the ways of the nations, nor adopt them and make Me the focus behind it.

kattneko

5. We cannot erase our pasts. Life doesn't work that way.

We're commanded to erase all affections for our past life. That would include letting go of idolatrous practices (even if the idolatrous practice has been adopted to make YHWH / Jesus the focus behind it).

• Ephesians 4:21-24 (NIV)
  
  21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
  
  
• Ezekiel 36:25-27 (NIV)
  
  25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

As has already been established, God considers "idols" as our other lovers—the things that win our affections and make us walk contrary to His commands. The analogy I described is about God as the husband, and the idols/idolatrous practices [disobedient practices] as the “ex”-lover. We become born-again, thus receive new desires, new heart, and new mind, that wants to please God the way He says He wants to be loved/obeyed/worshiped.

Do we remember that we were once idolators? Yes. Do we express affection for those old ways and practices that contradict His commands? No. Do we continue to practice those customs as long as we make it about God? No. We remove them from our lives. Again, God is not like us. He DOES expect us to cut off religiously-significant practices of our culture (and religion) if they violate what He defined as obedient. We cannot express love to our other lovers if we're with Him. He's jealous. Those practices should have never found their way into the Church. The converting Gentiles were suppose to leave those practices behind, not incorporate God into it—because He said not to.

kattneko

6. Using that logic, Christ just should have moved on when Lazarus died, rather than mourn him and raise him from the dead.

Raising Lazarus from the dead isn't an example of the analogy: the analogy is about removing idolatrous practices from our lives that our new spouse doesn't approve of. And because we love our new spouse more than our past life, we remove the practice upon His say so [and He says so before even marrying us; it's part of the contract/covenant; the covenant, the commands, are the marriage vow]. If He says, “I don't want you to use the practices that the nations use to honor their gods in your honoring of me”, then we need to let them go—and/or not adopt them at all, ever, at any time. Kissing statues, and using an image of God to focus our prayers better, came from the pagans. Not the commands of the Most High.

Just because hundreds of years have passed, that does not legitimize the disobedient practice/act that became tradition (it's essentially adopting the practices of pagan idols and making the Living God the center of it). It was disobedient the moment they did it, and the act continues to be disobedient today. Even if it is full blown acceptable tradition by the people, going around in Jesus' name, it will never be acceptable in God's eyes. Like King Jeroboam's sin—despite generations upon generations having passed, God always described his sin, and people practicing the now established tradition, as, “He followed completely the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols.” [link to this phrases' appearance throughout the book of Kings, long after Jeroboam dies, many kings later, all the way until the exile]. In short: Jeroboam didn't want the reign to go back to Solomon's descendants, so he made idols of YHWH (in the form of a calf, made two of them, one in Dan, one in Bethel) so people wouldn't have to travel back to Jerusalem in the southern kingdom of Judah, but worship in the northern kingdom of Israel (and he made counterfeit dates, and counterfeit priests, for legitimate holy appointments of God). You can read [1 Kings 12:25-33] to see how it all began.

kattneko

If Christ did not simply move on from the death of his friend, how could anyone just move on life you imply from the death of a lover. My dad's fiancee died suddenly 35 years ago. He still has a plush toy she gave him because she was important to him. My mother knows that it doesn't mean he loves her any less. It doesn't mean that he still clings to the first one. That plush toy sits in the house in a neat little row with a few others that my mother and we have given him over the years. True commitment to a new lover does not mean leaving the deceased completely behind and burning their memory. It means being able to love and accept someone who has baggage and allowing them to take the important stuff with them.

This is why the High Priest doesn't marry widows or divorcees, just virgins.

• Leviticus 21:10-15 (NIV)
  
  10 “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt[a] or tear his clothes. 11 He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, 12 nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the Lord.
  
  13 “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. 14 He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people,15 so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’”
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Leviticus 21:10 Or not uncover his head

We have past baggage? We're not fit.

Christ is our High Priest.

• Hebrews 4:14 (NIV)
  
  14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Hebrews 4:14 Greek has gone through the heavens
  
  
  
• 2 Corinthians 11:2 (NIV)
  
  2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

Christ will not marry people who value their past baggage (culture / disobedient religious practices) more than Him / more than what He demands out of the relationship. He's marrying the pure virgin, the one who is wholeheartedly devoted to Him only and practices that honor Him only. She knows no one else; she has united with no one else, no other spirits, nor affections for the practices of those other spirits. Our past affections can defile our relationship with Him and defile the disciples we make. We're suppose to be wholeheartedly His and only His.

Do you forget that our God is a jealous God? If Christ married (or agreed to marry) someone, and she wants to continue in the practices of her culture (even things getting passed around under “Jesus culture”), despite them violating His commands, how is that an expression of love towards Christ? It's not an expression of love for Christ, but love for culture and the ideas of man. We can't love anything more than Christ.

• Matthew 10:37-38 (NIV)
  
  37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
  
  
• Luke 14:26 (NIV)
  
  26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

So if a family member values a practice (cultural or religious) even though it violates God's commands, who are you going to side with? If you side with the tradition that contradicts His command, you're not loving Him, but the practice. The practice / idea becomes your idol, the one you submit to, instead of submitting to His instructions. His definition of things should reign supreme.

• Matthew 15:3 (NIV)
  
  3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

kattneko

Christ is someone we love with all that we have.

We love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. But He doesn't want to be worshipped / loved with everything at our hand's grasp, with everything available in the world, in any and every way we see fit. We're only to express love to Him the way He says is appropriate and the way He desires. In accord with His every command.

kattneko

We too love his mother. We kiss them to show allegiance.

No, you kiss a statue OF them. That's not the same as kissing the Son. Kissing a statue/idol/image/your own hand, violates the commands to not adopt the spiritual practices of the nations (and I demonstrated from scripture that this practice belongs to the nations, not YHWH's set-apart nation).

The One we show allegiance to is God. And it's not by kissing a statue that we show allegiance.

• Luke 11:27-28 (NIV)
  
  27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
  
  28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

kattneko

Y'all wear and tattoo and use dove imagery in lots of stuff. The dove being the representation of the Holy Spirit. I've even seen some kiss their dove charms. I see very little different except for many protestants it has become a fashion accessory.

I do not wear, use tattoos, or make depictions of the Holy Spirit. Nor kiss charms.

First of all,

• Leviticus 19:28 (NIV)
  
  28 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

The pagans do that. The skin is part of the immune system and what protects us from the sun and the environment around us. I will not compromise the function God gave that organ just because of a practice in my culture that seeks to please the lust of the eyes by perforating it with inks/pigments/dyes or by scarifcation, or because people give the tattoo a spiritual meaning in honor of God or of a god. God said no. Even if it becomes popular amongst Christians, I will not do that. It is a sin (a transgression of the law), not an appropriate interaction with creation.

I will not kiss statues or charms, because I now know kissing inanimate objects and your own hand in veneration of a deified thing is a practice that belongs to the pagans. And God said not to copy them. Though it may be a socially-acceptable way to express affection to God in religious circles, God says no. God is who I side with, thus I side with His commands, not religious circles / schools of thought that nullify the words coming out of His mouth.

And I will not draw images of the Godhead. Or use them as a means to focus or redirect my prayers to them. That is not obedient to the commands. We have no use for images of God. I pray to the invisible, as commanded.

The disobedient practices, what deviates from scripture, is what I'm condemning, regardless of who does it (protestant and catholic).

You know what? You're not willing to listen. You aren't willing to look at things any differently. I'm done with this conversation with you. You cherry pick verses, take things out of context, repeat your prejudices and then you take what I say and change it. You quote verses that, when taken in context with the surrounding scripture has nothing to do with your argument. I never said that kissing a statue was the same as kissing Him. These are symbolic acts. It doesn't seem to matter to you. You are certain that I am nothing more than a pagan. I can tell you these are pieces of art. I can tell you that they are used in teaching. They are not for directing prayer. They are for helping us to ignore distraction. Keeping the mind from wandering to other things. But hey, I'm a pagan. I don't care. I clearly haven't spent 27 years pursuing God with all that I have. My husband is entering the priesthood and because I worship a statue am I willing to dedicate the lives of myself and my children to come to this life of servitude to The Church. You forget. Jesus was HUMAN and you know what? He cried, fell, ate, and slept. Jesus had dirty diapers. He was divine and human at the same time. He was one of us. What you argue is of Muslim belief, that images shall not be made. Do you not realize that before the general population was literate they used these priceless works of art by Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and so many others to teach? No. Because it's idolatry. Who could every learn from art. That's why we give med students diagrams, so they can look at them and say, "well, these are pointless drawing that I should worship." We worship with the gifts of the Spirit, the gifts that God has given us. Remember the parable of the minas (talents)? If we let them sit or hide them away, they go to rot. We cannot squander them. We are to invest them back into the Kingdom. Otherwise we may as well have nothing. We pour back out what God has given us so that we may bless others. Or, I'm sorry, are we only allowed to worship on Sunday mornings with two singers, one guitar, and a piano, once in a while mixing it up with a flute? I didn't know that music was the only form of worship valued by God. On the bright side, I sing opera. Everyone else is burning in hell though.
Because your 400 years of rebellion trumps 2000 years of tradition. Your mind is so very closed to anything other than what is already in it that you refuse to learn about another culture and tradition. You focus so much on proving yourself right that you proof-text. Fun fact, you can make the Bible say anything by doing that. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/the-problem-with-proof-texting/

And ya know? I sound frustrated because I am. You don't listen for understanding, you listen to respond, and there's a difference. So what? Did anyone who died before the protestant revolution just go to Hell? Because guess what? It was all the Catholic Church, with the exception of a few heretics that even you would not agree with.
I am done. I am tired of trying to discuss this with you.  

[cristobela]

edited on 11/6/2017 to change image hosting

For the record, I responded to Katt's reply above in a different thread: [Cherry picking (proof-texting)]

---

That said, on to something else that needs re-assessing:

Foreign Relations

Garland-Green

We are told that the Harlot is and has far reaching connection. Here are some maps showing the Vatican Relations and Israels relations.

I don't know if the maps looked different in 2014 when you posted this, but both the Vatican's and Israel's "foreign relation connections" seem pretty far-reaching:

Map comparisons in spoiler tags: ↓

show spoilerhide spoiler

Holy See:



[source]

VS.

Israel:


[source]

One the one hand, the Holy See has diplomatic relations in all but ≈ 9 countries. Whereas, Israel has diplomatic relations in all but ≈ 21 countries. So, yes, the Vatican has more reach, but from east to west, north to south, both of those maps are full.

note: " ≈ " means approximately.

I'm not sure how godly these political alliances are—regardless of whether it's the Vatican or Jerusalem.

• Isaiah 30:1-2 (NIV)
  
  30 “Woe to the obstinate children,”
      declares the Lord,
  “to those who carry out plans that are not mine,
      forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit,
      heaping sin upon sin;
  2 who go down to Egypt
      without consulting me;
  who look for help to Pharaoh’s protection,
      to Egypt’s shade for refuge.

If Israel is confiding in political alliances, without consulting YHWH about it or in place of obeying the commands for protection, then she will not benefit from it in the end, just like in the past. Same goes for the Vatican. Any nation really. Funnily enough, they both have diplomatic relations with Egypt. razz


7 Hills

Garland-Green

Jerusalem is not connected with seven Hills or seven mountains.

Jerusalem actually does sit on 7 hills (like Rome, but not limited to Rome).

Quote:

Jerusalem's seven hills are Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet and the Mount of Corruption (all three are peaks in a mountain ridge that lies east of the old city), Mount Ophel, the original Mount Zion, the New Mount Zion and the hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built.

Jerusalem is not the only city in the world considered or historically believed to be built on seven hills. Others include Rome, Babylon, Moscow, Mecca, Lisbon, Tehran and Amman. More than nineteen cities in the United States also lay claim to be founded on seven hills.

source: http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/map-of-jerusalem-and-its-seven-hills.html

I bring this up, not only to be fair and accurate, but also to bring up the possibility that they're both the whore? The Catholic church does believe that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah; so they have been grafted into the body of Israel—albeit as an adulterous part of the body (and she's not alone in her adultery; many other sects/denominations are adulterous today too in certain areas, mixing in beliefs/practices of the pagans).

The people of Jerusalem today, as well, have paganism being celebrated in the streets [link] (I left a comment on that article explaining why). That is no different than the "whoring around with other lovers" present within Roman Catholicism (Hindu and Buddhist practices, bowing before images, even the use of prayer beads for meditation and to keep count of how many times one has repeated a prayer, i.e. like the Japa mala that the Buddhists and Hindus use [the ≈100-bead chains of prayer beads come from these ancient Asian religions—not YHWH worship]).


About Mecca... idea

It's interesting that Mecca is also on seven hills. Muslims also use prayer beads (called "Misbaha" or "Tasbih"). Beyond that, I don't know what to make of Mecca. All I know is the whore makes everyone prostitute themselves and is responsible for killing the servants of God, thus God exacting revenge back on her (Jerusalem and Rome are guilty of this too).

• Revelation 19:2 (NIV)
  
  2 for true and just are his judgments.
  He has condemned the great prostitute
      who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.
      He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.”

Mecca = Islam.

Obviously, Radical Islamists are killing Christians and Jews. But is Islam making people whore? (well, now that I think about it, that Kaaba site contains the Black Stone...).

The Black Stone (or Hajarul Aswad, Arabic: الحجر الأسود‎ al-Ḥajar al-Aswad) is the eastern cornerstone of the Kaaba, the ancient stone building, located in the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. It is revered by Muslims as an Islamic relic which, according to Muslim tradition, dates back to the time of Adam and Eve.[1]

The stone was venerated at the Kaaba in pre-Islamic pagan times. According to Islamic tradition, it was set intact into the Kaaba's wall by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the year 605 A.D., five years before his first revelation. Since then it has been broken into a number of fragments and is now cemented into a silver frame in the side of the Kaaba. Its physical appearance is that of a fragmented dark rock, polished smooth by the hands of pilgrims. Islamic tradition holds that it fell from the heaven as a guide for Adam and Eve to build an altar, although it has often been described as a meteorite, a hypothesis, which is now uncertain.[2]

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba as a part of the tawaf ritual during the hajj and many try to stop and kiss the Black Stone, emulating the kiss that Islamic tradition records that it received from Muhammad.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

[...]

[...] The Semitic cultures of the Middle East had a tradition of using unusual stones to mark places of worship, a phenomenon which is reflected in the Hebrew Bible as well as the Qur'an,[10] although bowing to or kissing such sacred objects is repeatedly described in the Tanakh as idolatrous[11] and was the subject of prophetic rebuke.[12][13][14][15][16][17] Some writers remark on the apparent similarity of the Black Stone and its frame to the external female genitalia,[18][19] and ascribe this to its earlier association with fertility rites of Arabia.[20][21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone#History_and_tradition

Do you know how many people make a pilgrimage to Mecca and bow down towards the Kaaba? with this idol next to it? :l

[...] Today, more than 15 million Muslims visit Mecca annually, including several million during the few days of the Hajj.[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca

All of these people bowing down to that stone. That is idolatrous. That is adultery to the Most High.

Not to mention, Muhammad is an idol himself. He denies Jesus is the sacrifice for sins whom the prophet Isaiah foretold about (thus denies the prophets).

And Muhammad denies the law of God: YHWH says to not take back a wife after she has joined herself to another man, that defiles the land (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), but Muhammad says, that's cool (Surah 2:230)

YHWH says


• Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (NIV)
  
  24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Muhammad says


• Surah 2:230 SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
  
  And if he has divorced her [for the third time], then she is not lawful to him afterward until [after] she marries a husband other than him. And if the latter husband divorces her [or dies], there is no blame upon the woman and her former husband for returning to each other if they think that they can keep [within] the limits of Allah . These are the limits of Allah , which He makes clear to a people who know.

Ergo, Muhammad denies the law (of YHWH) and the prophets (Isaiah, servant of YHWH).

Contrary to scripture:

• Acts 24:14 (NIV)
  
  14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

/end Mecca


That said, bringing these details to light about Jerusalem (that her foreign relation connections are far reaching as well and that she sits on 7 hills too) doesn't actually help reach a verdict in all this. How is Jerusalem making the nations whore? If anything, the Christian and Muslim adherents outnumber the Jews. If there were more clear descriptions in scripture available (for instance, if scripture had said, "and the whore is the holy city where our Lord was crucified", the way Jerusalem is described in Revelation 11), then it would be obvious that it was Jerusalem and rule out Rome (and Mecca) entirely, but no such detail exists. So Rome is still a suspect. A very big suspect. As is Mecca. ninja More people should talk about her. Although if either of the two (Christians or Muslims) take over Jerusalem, then...Jerusalem could be the whore. Jerusalem will be handed over to the Gentiles after all idea

• Revelation 11:1-2 (NIV)
  
  11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

If everyone weren't such whores / adulterers when it came to the commands of God, but were actually loyal to the commands, this would be much easier to narrow down...but alas adultery, adultery everywhere.

• James 4:4 (NIV)
  
  4 You adulterous people,[a] don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. James 4:4 An allusion to covenant unfaithfulness; see Hosea 3:1.

 

[Garland-Green]

Since two of the people in the conversation are no longer present with us in the guild, I don't think it would be fair of me to answer their questions and make counter claims since they can't reply. I have been away for a few days and was planning on answering some of the posts when I came back, but since one of them left on their own volition I won't be doing that. Should you have any questions regarding anything I have written or they have written a good idea is to look up both sides of the argument. I am also open to answering Private Messages.

Topic locked 19th of February 2018.