The Bible, the Papacy and the Church

Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 - for example, God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim.

Num. 21:8-9 - God also commands the making of the bronze serpent. The image of the bronze serpent is not an idol to be worshiped, but an article that lifts the mind to the supernatural.

I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon's temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.

Col. 1:15 - the only image of God that Catholics worship is Jesus Christ, who is the "image" (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God.


So unless God commands the violation of his own Laws in ordering the Hebrews to make any graven image (even an image used in worship, but not worshiped itself), then the alternative must be true.

OWB, I am interested on your take.



Does praying to Jesus, infront of this icon, or infront of this statue (but not to them) constitute idolatry?



OWB, I will respond to your other post in due time.

 

OWB, for your first point, if the negatives of a religion could prove it invalidity, then wouldn't it's positives prove its validity? If, for example, the Watchtower People changed the doctrine on blood transfusions, wouldn't that count as negatives toward that religious body? Wouldn't the deaths of many innocent children then be on the past governing forces? Would that be a sin counted post-mortem?

 

I'd have to say my take would be, that God was concerned about the pagan idols that were being worshiped in the nations around God's people and God did not want his people to get involved in such practices. But at certain times and for certain reasons God commanded his people to make such images.

So I would say that the making of images of something is not wrong in of it's self but how that image viewed or used is the problem.

The copper serpent is a good example of this, whereas God commanded the making of the serpent for good reasons but later the people began to worship this image which was something God did not want.

Myself, I would stay away from displaying images in my place of worship, mainly because we were not directly told to put them there and because the temption is too great for people to abuse it and start directly worshipping them or wrongly useing them in their worship.

 

I dont know OWB.....the description in Revelations seem to make a connection with RRC I mean who else has Power over politics like the Vatican? and had murderous history look at some of the poster above have posted.

Revelations 17:1-4, 6

"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,



and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."

 

how do we know jesus was white? I have had a friend tell me that in the bible (am going to ask him for the passage) that jesus was ugly and had nappy hair like Wool.

I highly doubt that Jesus had blue eyes and brown hair as you see in ALOT of picture. I highly doubt JC looked like anything in the pictures posted above.

 

have you notice how it's God commanding these things? and not the Vatican?

 

Yes and no, for me it would depend on what you consider a negative and a positive. For me I tend to consider things negative and positive depending on how much they deviate from the Bible principles.

Like misunderstanding what the Bible means by the word "generation", not so much but something like the Inquisition, I say someone missed the point big time and something like that would, for me, call into question the guidance that's being given.

Yes it would and then those deaths would be on the hands of the past governing forces as well as those governing now if they did not condemn the actions of those governing forces and apologize for the harm caused.

One of the problems with that scenario is that the Watchtower People are unlikely to change that doctrine, seeing as they believe that it is firmly based in scripture and the fact that no one who has adhered to that doctrine has contracted AIDS or any number of other diseases such as hepatitis through blood transfusions, so if you were just to go on deaths prevented versus deaths caused by that doctrine, I'd say they might come out on top on that one.

 

I didn't say the Catholic Church wasn't part of Babylon the Great but God has a bone to pick with all false religion and not just with the Catholic church. That is why it's called Babylon the Great, because Babylon is from where all false religious doctrine was spread to the far corners of the Earth and any religion the uses that same false religious doctrine is considered part of Babylon the Great. God doesn't distinguish between all the little petty divisions of false worship. Worship is to God divided into two parts true and false, there is only one true religion and God groups all other false religion into one heading "Babylon the Great". It is up to us to find that one true religion.

 

In Revelations 17

" 9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction."

the vatican sits on seven hills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome

also the roman catholic church will tell you that its Jerusalem but its not.

 

as you clearly see a typical Jesus "image" see how good looking he is.

Isa.53
[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
[2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

so jesus is one ugly dude.

 

Revelations 17:9 This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction."

If you'll notice, in this scripture it talks about heads, hills and kings all being the same thing. Then going on it says about them; Five have fallen, one is and the other is not yet come. This does not sound like actual hills but more like kings or kingdoms, seeing as none of the actual hills of Rome have fallen. When John received this vision most likely the five that had fallen were; Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece. The "one that is" would be Rome, as it was still ruling at the time. I'll let you decide what might be the last one. But obviously the Catholic church did not reign over Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece since it didn't exist yet but false religion was there to "ride" each one of these kingdoms.

 

^^ I have heard that the Kings are the last six Popes in power including this one in power but thats just how this one site views it AM NOT SO SURE if the popes are the kings the bible speaks of though I guess I should go back to that site and study their view but I still feel that those hills are hills as mentioned.

 

He also probably smelled bad and wasn't very clean by today's standards.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus (the painting you posted) came from visions Bl Marguerite Marie Alacoque.

Also, your Isaiah quotation isn't about Jesus being ugly, it is about not recognizing the LORD when we see him. How many people reject Jesus and have rejected him (even in his own day). They did not recognize the face of the invisible God made flesh. For someone who reads things very straightforward, you seem to have sopme issues with Scripture that points to catholic theology. (eg Mark 14:22-25; Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:13-20 Jesus says it is his body).

 

Isaiah 53

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

it is about his looks look at the next verse like it you said we would not wanted him like you said. so that verse before is about his looks!

 

UKR-CDN, in all honesty and no offense but with all the fallacy that besides I (and others) have pointed out about the Catholicism why are you so intended into defending it? It's like one of the earlier posters said why don't you just study the bible your self (which i know you have) then to follow what some clergy or priest said and I understand you can reply with well what are preachers for?! in J. witness, Evangelicals, Protestants, Seven Day AD.? but I feel thats alot different then from what history has shown about the Vatican Leaders(Popes) have done in the past.

You seem to have your sense of "truth" which I honestly think is how you where taught to defend it but then theirs other things that the bible that can't be more clearer on and it seem that Catholicism makes it into seem more complicate then it is...??? I personally AINT attacking YOU but the I AM questioning/attacking what the Roman Catholic Church teaches......Also AM not trying to move you to my religion which I don't even think I have a name for it?!?

:cheers2:

peace and love my friend.

 

I do not think that it necessarily means he is ugly JMT. All of the verses work together.

Basically what Isaiah is getting at with the "ugly" verse is that the LORD will not appear like the LORD. When we think of God, we think of beauty and majesty, but the LORD came in the form of a peasant from Galilee (Palestine's backwater--much like American jokes about Appalachian people) It doesn't mean Jesus was physically ugly, but that his divinity was not manifest to the general population. You remember that Jesus was tranfigured on the mountain when he spoke with Moses and Elijah. This is the revelation of Jesus' divine beauty and majesty.

Again, Isaiah did not necessarily speak of literal ugliness, just like you believe Jesus did not speak of his literal body and blood during the Lord's Supper.

I really enjoy your thoughtful exegesis OWB, any opinions?

 

Because I know it is true. I have done inedpendent studies into Scripture as well as what the earliest Christians believed, and it all came back Catholic. I posted this thread in a PM of ours once, and I will post it again just to show everyone something about myself.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=1200676&postcount=10

This is who I was. No Catholic converted me through apologetics. No pamphlet handed to me converted me. All of my Christian friends were not Catholic (a couple Lutheran, a couple Potter's House Fundamentalist, an Alliance Church member), in fact some were and still are anti-Catholic! The grace of God converted me. It was like a tonne of bricks hitting me. I was wrong. God led me to the light, and there i shall remain. The more and more I read from sources not tainted with Jack Chick and Hislop (The Two Babylons) the more I came to understand that modern anti-catholicism in America is really bread from an isolationist standpoint (people were afraid the irish and italian and polish immigrants would listen to the Pope and not the President). I also understand that many of the people who use Hislop's fairy tale (for it is entirely fabricated) that he also said that the cross was a pagan symbol. He also said that communion wafers are sun wafers because they are round; he didn't say that the manna from heaven God provided was also round.

I have done research, and you know what it all points towards me. Catholicicism is the biggest acceptable prejudice in the world. If a catholic makes fun of a protestant, it is because they are satan's tool, but the Church is just harbouring sexually abusive priests by moving them from diocese to diocese. News Flash: it isn't just clergy, public school teachers have a higher rate of this than priests, and also the proper actions were not taken. http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

I do not just listen to my clergy, I listen to the words in Scripture first, the the interpretation filtered through other areas in Scripture, and then finally through Tradition. Again, do you confess your sins to another person like it is commanded in the New Testament James 5:15? Do you preach "Christ crucified" 1 Corinthians 1:23? Do you practice infant baptism (Lutherans, Calvinists--hell everyone does except some restorationist movements like the Watchtower People, Mormons, and then also the Anabaptist tradition that includes Baptist and Evangelical)

Do you do your own research? Have you read, with an open mind, information about Catholicism, or is it just discounted as The Evil One's doing?

I am not sure what you mean, So I will take a stab. If you mean that the Vatican has been the source of violence and these have not, then you are mistaken. Calvin was the first to persecute the anabaptists. Calvinist Protestants persecuted the Catholics in France. Catholics were persecuted in England (and a Catholic cannot take the thrown of England). Christianity by and large is stained with blood. The best we can do is forgive the sins of the past, and repair the ones we still can fix.

I was not taught to defend Catholicism at all. i am an untrained apologist. All of this is from my own research into the Catechism, other sources, and most importantly the BIBLE (including the books Luther dropped from Canon)

That is fine. I wish you the best in life.

Cheers
T

 

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't mention how the J. witness have been a source of violence. How do you feel they have been a source of violence? In fact I've found very little evidence of non-Trinitarians being violent and they are the ones usually being persecuted by Trinitarians. If you throw in the belief in Hellfire, then I've found that those who believe in both Hellfire and the trinity are the violent ones and those who don't have little or no history of violence.

 

Well to me the Trinity necessarily follows from Scripture. So although "by their fruitage you shall know them" are we not saved by faith and not good deeds?

Also, there have been instances of sexual abuse with the Watchtower People.

 

true but personally I think he wasn't a white guy. I honestly dont think any of the jews where black as I state in other post. I still think wasnt an attractive guy like in his portraits like how do we know that him? he did take his body with him once he died and then resurrected.