Jesus did not look like a bearded lady

[patrick457]

In his third treatise, John expands on latreia and proskynēsis:

On the kinds of Adoration.

The first kind is the worship of latreia, which we give to God, who alone is adorable by nature, and this worship is shown in several ways, and first by the worship of servants. All created things worship Him, as servants their master. “All things serve Thee,” (Ps. 119:91) the psalm says. Some serve willingly, others unwillingly; some with full knowledge, willingly, as in the case of the devout, others knowing, but not willing, against their will, as the devil’s. Others, again, not knowing the true God, worship in spite of themselves Him whom they do not know.

The second kind is the worship of admiration and desire which we give to God on account of His essential glory. He alone is worthy of praise, who receives it from no one, being Himself the cause of all glory and all good, He is light, incomprehensible sweetness, incomparable, immeasurable perfection, an ocean of goodness, boundless wisdom, and power, who alone is worthy of Himself to excite admiration, to be worshipped, glorified, and desired.

The third kind of worship is that of thanksgiving for the goods we have received. We must thank God for all created things, and show Him perpetual worship, as from Him and through Him all creation takes its being and subsists. (Col. 1:16-17) He gives lavishly of His gifts to all, and without being asked. He wishes all to be saved, (1 Tim. 2:4) and to partake of His goodness. He is long-suffering with us sinners. He allows His sun to shine upon the just and unjust, and His rain to fall upon the wicked and the good alike. (Mt. 5.45) And being the Son of God, He became one of us for our sakes, and made us partakers of His divine nature, so that “we shall be like unto Him,” (1 Jn. 3:2) as St John says in his Catholic epistle.

The fourth kind is suggested by the need and hope of benefits. Recognising that without Him we can neither do nor possess anything good, we worship Him, asking Him to satisfy our needs and desires, that we may be preserved from evil and arrive at good.

The fifth kind is the worship of contrition and confession. As sinners we worship God, and prostrate ourselves before Him, needing His forgiveness, as it becomes servants. This happens in three ways. A man may be sorry out of love, or lest he should lose God’s benefits, or for fear of chastisement. The first is prompted by goodness and desire for God himself, and the condition of a son: the second is interested, the third is slavish.

These are the five kinds of worship due to God. Now, for the seven kinds of proskynēsis that can be given creatures:

What we find worshipped in Scripture, and in how many ways we show worship to creatures

First, those places in which God, who alone is holy, has rested, and His resting-place in the saints, as in the holy Mother of God and in all the saints. These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God’s indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire’s action. He says: [107] “Be ye holy because I am holy.” (Lev. 19:2) The first thing is the free choice of the will. Then, in the case of a good choice, God helps it on and confirms it. “I will take up my abode in them,” (Lev. 26:12) He says. “We are the temples of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in us.” (I Cor. 3:16) Again, “He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.” (Mt. 10:1) And again, “That which I do you shall do, and greater things.” (Jn. 14:12) Again: “As I live, God says, whosoever shall glorify Me, him will I glorify.” (I Sam. 2:30) Again: "If we suffer with Him that we may be also glorified with Him. (Rom. 8:17) And “God stood in the synagogue of the gods; in the midst of it He points out the gods.” (Ps. 82:1) As, then, they are truly gods, not by nature, but as partakers of God’s nature, so they are to be worshipped, not as worshipful on their own account, but as possessing in themselves Him who is worshipful by nature. Just in the same way iron when ignited is not by nature hot and burning to the touch, it is the fire which makes it so. They are worshipped as exalted by God, as through Him inspiring fear to His enemies, and becoming benefactors to the faithful. It is love of God which gives them their free access to Him, not as gods or benefactors by nature, but as servants and ministers of God. We worship them, then, as the king is honoured through the honour given to a loved servant. He is honoured as a minister in attendance upon his master–as a valued friend, not as king. The prayers of those who approach with faith are heard, whether through the servant’s intercession with the king, or whether through the king’s acceptance of the honour and faith shown by the servant’s petitioner, for it was in his name that the petition was made. Thus, those who approached through the apostles obtained their cures. Thus the shadow, and winding-sheets, and girdles of the apostles worked healings. Those who perversely and profanely wish them to be adored as gods are themselves damnable, and deserve eternal fire. And those who in the false pride of their hearts disdain to worship God’s servants are convicted of impiety towards God. The children who derided and laughed to scorn Elisseus bear witness to this, inasmuch as they were devoured by bears.

 

[patrick457]

Continued (yeah, I know that he makes a remark that is quite offensive to modern-day standards somewhere in there):

Secondly, we worship creatures by honouring those places or persons whom God has associated with the work of our salvation, whether before our Lord’s coming or since the dispensation of His incarnation. For instance, I venerate Mount Sinai, Nazareth, the stable at Bethlehem, and the cave, the sacred mount of Golgotha, the wood of the Cross, the nails and sponge and reed, the sacred and saving lance, the dress and tunic, the linen cloths, the swathing clothes, the holy tomb, the source of our resurrection, the sepulchre, the holy mountain of Sion and the mountain of Olives, the Pool of Bethsaida and the sacred garden of Gethsemane, and all similar spots. I cherish them and every holy temple of God, and everything connected with God’s name, not on their own account but because they show forth the divine power, and through them and in them it pleased God to bring about our salvation. I venerate and worship angels and men, and all matter participating in divine power and ministering to our salvation through it. I do not worship the Jews. They are not participators in divine power, nor have they contributed to my salvation. They crucified my God, the King of Glory, moved rather by envy and hatred against God their Benefactor. “Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house,” (Ps. 26:8) says David, “we will adore in the place where his feet stood. And adore at His holy mountain.” (Ps. 132.7; 99.9) The holy Mother of God is the living holy mountain of God. The apostles are the teaching mountains of God. “The mountains skipped like rams, and the hills like the lambs of the flock.” (1 Cor. 10:11)
The third kind of worship is directed to objects dedicated to God, as, for instance, the holy Gospels and other sacred books. They were written for our instruction who live in these latter days. Sacred vessels, again, chalices, thuribles, candelabra, and altars belong to this category. It is evident that respect is due to them all. Consider how Baltassar made the people use the sacred vessels, and how God took away his kingdom from him. (Dan. 5:2ff)
The fourth kind of worship is that of images seen by the prophets. They saw God in sensible vision, and images of future things, as Aaron’s rod, the figure of Our Lady’s virginity, the urn, and the table. And Jacob worshipped on the point of his rod. (Gen. 47:31) He was a type of our Lord. Images of past events recall their remembrance. The tabernacle was an image of the whole world. “See,” God said to Moses, “the type which was shown to thee on the mountain, and the golden cherubim, the work of sculpturers, and the cherubim within the veil of woven work.” (Ex. 25:40) Thus we adore the sacred figure of the Cross, the likeness of our God’s bodily features, the likeness of her who bore Him, and all belonging to Him.
The fifth manner is in the worship of each other as having upon us the mark of God and being made after His image, humbling ourselves mutually, (Eph. 5:21) and so fulfilling the law of charity.
The sixth manner is the worship of those in power who have authority. “Give to all men their dues,” the apostle says; “give honour where it is due.” (Rom. 13:7) This Jacob did in worshipping Esau as his elder brother, and Pharao the ruler established by God.
In the seventh place, the worship of servants towards their masters and benefactors, and of petitioners towards those who grant their favours, as in the case of Abraham when he [112] bought the double cave from the sons of Emmor. (Gen. 23:7, 12)
It is needless to say that fear, desire, and honour are tokens of worship, as also submission and humiliation. No one should be worshipped as God except the one true God. Whatever is due to all the rest is for God’s sake.

 

[Major_Minor]

When a person looks at an image and says a prayer, that person IS praying to the image. The prayer may be directed towards the person represented by the image, but technically, he is praying to the image. No one prays to an image expecting the image to hear prayers. Even pagans don’t direct their prayers to statues of stone. It is always the person represented by the image that the prayer would be directed to, not to the image itself.

Nebuchadnezzar erected an image of himself that was made of gold. He commanded the people to pay reverence to it by bowing down to the image when some palace music was heard. Of course, Nebuchadnezzar understood that by their act of bowing down to the image, the people would be showing reverence to him, the person represented in the image, not to the image itself.

That’s just horrible logic. You REALLY ought to take a moment to look at what Catholics say about icons, statues and paintings before you come here and attack Catholics and defend pagans. You are projecting all kinds of wrong ideas on Catholics. You are not speaking the truth. You call yourself a Christian, but come here and start off by lying.
You are lying when you represent people doing a certain thing WITHOUT first checking to see what their perspective is. It seems to me all your understanding of Catholicism comes from Protestant propaganda… Which is just about like asserting you understand African American issues because you’ve read Ku Klux Klan literature or that you understand Judaism because you’ve read “The protocols of the elders of Zion”

You are presenting the false idol of your idea of Catholicism, not the reality of what it teaches.

I’d strongly suggest you try allowing the Church to speak for itself and THEN if you have a problem with what the Church ACTUALLY thinks begin your critique there …though I’m not certain you’re going to understand anything more complex than Chick pamphlet theology.

 

[Thing]

And how did you know this? How did you know that our Creator now wants us to have a visual representation of Him when before He did not allow this?

Before this nobody had seen God. Now everybody sees God as Jesus, God and man.
He gave everybody a visual representation of Himself when He walked among them. Representations of Jesus in art are representations of what people saw when He walked among them. Having visual representations of Him now or not does not matter anymore, He became man and walked among us, visually.

If you use that logic, the Father would be made of flesh and blood: As we see a human Jesus, we also see a human Father.

What Jesus meant was that the Father and the Son are in complete spiritual harmony – perfect in unity as to attitude, belief, direction and purpose. So, what we see in Jesus – His attitude and character – is what the Father also possesses. And what we hear from Jesus – the things that He preached – is what we can also expect to hear from the Father. We know the Father when we see the Son, not because they look alike, but because they are in perfect spiritual harmony.

God is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. He Himself showed us God the Son visually and we show each other God the Son, visually too, in visual art.

Of course, these images are not real Gods. I do not think they are, and I do not see anybody in his right mind thinking their statues of wood and stone are real gods. They’re representations of the gods being worshipped, not the gods themselves. People [and that include pagans with their representations of their many pagan gods] use their images as an AID to worship.

Thats a difference between modern man and ancient man who did actually think that the stone god ate the food offering.

But that is precisely what the second commandment forbids. As the first commandment tells us to worship the Creator alone, the second commandment tells us about HOW to worship that Creator. We are not to make any representation of Him in our worship. That’s why Jesus said: “But the hour cometh, and NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father IN SPIRIT and in truth… God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).

And we do this also as we did this when we could see Him visually on earth. The representation of Him is not a god itself nor is it a representation of a different god to Him.

The instant a man sets up any representation of God, he denies that which is essential in God. God is the essence of all power – all wisdom – all love. God is limitless. When a man erects a mental or physical image of God, he automatically limits in his own thought and worship the God who will not be limited.

See your typing of your description of God. That is a visual description of God. A visual representation of God. Although the visual language used is symbolic it nevertheless produces an image of God in your mind; and, all of those qualities you have described can also be represented [even on your computer screen] in more or in less visually symbolic ways to present that same image of God in your mind.

God does not condemn art or sculpture, but rather the setting up of any picture or image or representation “to bow down unto it.” It is the use of art or sculpture as a form of worship or “aid” to worship that God condemns. The second commandment is not speaking of the worship of an idol – that’s forbidden in the first commandment. The second commandment forbids the use of physical “aids” or “helps” in worshipping the invisible God.

Art and sculpture must also be a gift from God. When the gift is missused to represent other different gods and if people worship those different gods then the Commandment kicks in, so to speak.

The golden calf that the ancient Israelites made was a representation of the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. It was not some idol in place of the true God. It represented God Himself. Notice that after making the golden calf, the Israelites declared: “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Exo. 32:4). And when Aaron saw this, he proclaimed: “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord” (next verse).

But God was not a calf. He did not even tell them His name. Then, then God became man and the angel said His name would be Jesus.

 

[patrick457]

The golden calf that the ancient Israelites made was a representation of the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. It was not some idol in place of the true God. It represented God Himself. Notice that after making the golden calf, the Israelites declared: “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Exo. 32:4). And when Aaron saw this, he proclaimed: “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord” (next verse).

In the Ancient Near East, it was common for various gods, especially storm or water deities, to be depicted either as riding on oxen-like creatures, having bovine features (such as having a bull’s head or horns), or as bovines themselves, since oxen with their horns were symbols of strength power. So yeah. Alternatively, the ‘calf’ could be intended as a representation of the divine vehicle: gods and kings were often portrayed as either standing on animal-like creatures or sitting upon them like a throne; say, human-headed lions or bulls or whatnot. The Ark itself seem follow this idea: the keruvim on the kapporet (traditionally misrendered as ‘mercy-seat’), with their wings, served as the visible pedestal or throne for the invisible God.

BTW, isn’t it funny that we’ve yet once more drifted back to pesel-land (as I’d term the discussions revolving on purported iconolatry and whatnot)?

 

[patrick457]

It is in times like these that I feel obligated to post this little piece of mine a while ago about pesalim:

Compared to their neighbors, the Israelites contributed little in the way of originality to arts and crafts. Borrowers for the most part, they mostly produced works hardly indistinguishable from that of other cultures of the time. The proscription in Exodus against making pesel (also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period, a practice which the Bible does attest to. For example, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the authors did not denounce them.

Pesel, which is derived from the verb pasal, “to hew [into shape]”, “fashion by cutting” or “to carve” in Biblical usage would suggest a sort of image hewn from stone or cut from wood (later, the usage would extend to those cast from metal). If we take the wording literally here, the injunction would not include painted images. In most occurrences of the noun in the OT it generally means a sort of “cultic image” (i.e., an idol) and occurs almost exclusively in the context of references to imagery - apparently the word was so strongly colored by the contexts in which it is used. This usage is in contrast to other attested usages of cognates in Northwest Semitic languages, where the root psl still had the main meaning of “to hew” or “to carve”. In Ugaritic for example psl designates craftsmen who work on stones and wood. The occurrences of psl in Punic and Nabataean inscriptions are also associated with stone- or wood-work. The Syriac (psl) and Aramaic (psl/psylh, pslh) cognates, as well as extrabiblical Hebrew usages of the word also fall along the same lines.

The prohibition was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).

We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen, humans, and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban - and it would seem that the prohibition of representations was less rigid in the preexilic period. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the seal impressionslmlk on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.

Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of YHWH – its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of YHWH is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly steeds/mounts, the two cherubim.

The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.

The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.

We now need to distinguish between aniconism and iconoclasm, which might help clarify the issue of graven images. Aniconic cults are usually defined as those where there are no iconic representations of the deity (anthropomorphic or theriomorphic) serving as the dominant central or cultic symbol, while iconoclasm is the active, religiously motivated hatred of images, that is, the injunction against making or venerating images within a given religion, as well as the damaging and demolition of images of another religion. We can divide aniconism itself into two categories: (1) de facto aniconism, a more fairly tolerant form, and (2) programmatic aniconism, which moves toward a rigorous iconoclasm but which developed out of the aniconic tendency of an earlier time.

 

[patrick457]

De facto aniconism often merely used symbols, such as a stela or an empty throne, to mark the deity’s presence. Programmatic aniconism meanwhile represents the development from a generally assumed use of empty space or certain symbols to a very explicit stand against any depiction of the deity. In the case of the Israelites, de facto aniconism in the ‘official’ cults was represented both by the cherubim of the Ark and possibly the ‘golden calves’ that Jeroboam erected. Now aniconistic tendencies were not unique to the Israelites, we must remember; there was a was a type of aniconism common in the West Semitic region known as “standing stone aniconism” (where standing-stones or matztzevot have a prominence).

We do not know exactly when the Israelites, which rejected even standing stones in its cult, moved towards de facto aniconism to a programmic one, which according to some was that which made Israelite religion rather distinct. We can already see its signs however by the seventh century BC, when Judean name seals show a clear tendency towards aniconicity, a tendency that is not exclusive but begins even further back and then becomes quite pronounced.

Some, however, think that the best way to interpret the evidence is thus: aniconism was the official, dominant position throughout Israelite history, but it was not totally uniform. From earliest times, the main or official cult of the God of Israel was largely aniconic, as represented in its leaders and its sanctuaries. At earlier times, a number cultic paraphernalia that were later regarded as ‘idols’ seem to have been tolerated in some circles, but were eventually condemned outright by major elements of the official cult (for example, prophets and kings). At the same time, unofficial, domestic cults and extramural shrines were probably more open to iconography and maybe even outright housed images of the deity - which is also eventually frowned upon.

The meaning and function of the absence of images is less certain. The attachment of the prohibition of pesel to the prohibition against the worship of other gods suggests that at least one function of the commandment was to ensure and safeguard exclusive worship of YHWH. The associations of other nations’ gods with pesel meant that a representation of deity could always be potentially another deity. The aniconic tendency was therefore, a feature of the conflict - divergence and differentiation of YHWH vis-a-vis other, false deities. Another function could be that it helped preserve the transcendence of God as well as the proper form of God’s immanence in the world, as the book of Deuteronomy implies.

Yet another suggestion is that the ban was closely linked to socio-political and economic realities. The close association of conceptions of kingship and deity in the ancient world, may have been a factor for this. The king was regarded in the ANE as the earthly representative of the gods, and as such the divine image was regarded as a symbol of the legitimacy of the earthly king. Images of gods was thus treated and pictured as kings, therefore serving as a reminder of the king’s divinely-given authority. The resistance to pesel may have therefore been linked to a distinctive feature of Israel’s early social structure: a resistance to kingship. The images on thrones were gods and kings; having a physical image of YHWH on a throne could have served to suggest and legitimize a leadership foreign to Israel’s social structure.

 

[LilyM]

:coffeeread: But–but–but that would mean that the Free Methodists pray to:bigyikes: the church pews, and that us United Methodists pray to:bigyikes::bigyikes: our beds!!!

[SIGN1]
:frighten:
It’s the End Of The World!!
It’s the End Of the World!!!
[/SIGN1]

:compcoff:Or, maybe you’re just a wee tad bit :whacky:confused, yean…:twocents:

And furthermore that we ALL idolatrously worship the Bible, not to mention all our missals and prayerbooks!

 

[LilyM]

Thats a difference between modern man and ancient man who did actually think that the stone god ate the food offering.

Not just ancient man, there are still Hindus who believe that certain statues of their gods physically and literally drink milk offerings given to them.

Not knowing, of course, that there is a non-supernatural explanation of the fact that milk poured upon the statue disappears (the statues being made of porous clay absorb liquids, including milk, quite rapidly - hence people thinking the statue of its own power is ‘drinking’ the milk).

And I daresay there are still tribespeople in the Amazon, Africa or whatnot that retain their beliefs in the divine powers residing within various inanimate objects.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When a person looks at an image and says a prayer, that person IS praying to the image. The prayer may be directed towards the person represented by the image, but technically, he is praying to the image. No one prays to an image expecting the image to hear prayers. Even pagans don’t direct their prayers to statues of stone. It is always the person represented by the image that the prayer would be directed to, not to the image itself.

Nebuchadnezzar erected an image of himself that was made of gold. He commanded the people to pay reverence to it by bowing down to the image when some palace music was heard. Of course, Nebuchadnezzar understood that by their act of bowing down to the image, the people would be showing reverence to him, the person represented in the image, not to the image itself.

Don’t ever tell me again that you think to whom or to what I am praying. You wouldn’t know that. (1) I was explicit about rarely even using/wanting images in my prayer; normally, these distract from my concentration. If I happen upon something accidentally, that moves me or draws me in closer to the invisible person, I might pay slight regard to that image, as an avenue to the sacred concept or the sacred being behind that, particularly if such an encounter is providing illumination (2) only the person praying knows to what or to whom he or she is praying. I am not confused, but you are. You even go so far as to confuse me with an ancient middle Eastern ruler and his deistic self-concept and purpose. I don’t care what he did. I care what Catholics do, and what I do, and I’m here to reject your obviously faulty understanding of what gazing at an image (while praying to an invisible person) truly means.

 

[Zooey]

And furthermore that we ALL idolatrously worship the Bible, not to mention all our missals and prayerbooks!

:clapping::yup:

 

[Mailman]

No, this is incorrect. The pagans believe that the wood and stone contain the essence or soul of their god. They don’t consider them to be representations of something unseen. They have no concept of an unseen reality.

It’s not only pagans who believe in such a thing. Practically everyone who uses an image in his/her worship believes the image contains the essence of the “God” being worshiped. Now, the fact that that is so, tells us that the image is treated merely as a representation, not as the actual god itself – a representation having the spirit or essence of the god being worshipped.

Saying pagans don’t have any concept of something unseen is bringing it too far. How do you know they don’t? They’re human beings like us, having minds as equally imaginative as any one of us.

No, it isn’t. What the second commandment forbids is the actual worship of graven images - that is, things created by human beings that are thought to contain the essences or souls of gods.

The second commandment says plainly and clearly that we should not make images “to bow down unto it” even if these were images of heavenly beings, of which Jesus is one.

No, it wasn’t. They believed that it contained the soul of God, and that they could pray to it and receive answers to their prayers. It was not a representation of anything exterior to itself - Aaron thought that the soul or the essence of God was inhabiting the golden calf.

The fact that they thought the essence of God was in the golden calf shows that they did not think the golden calf itself was God but that it was a representation of God.

 

[Mailman]

An example of mailman’s incorrectness would be the Black Stone at the Ka’aba shrine in Mecca…those pagans didn’t see it as a ‘representation’ of some ineffable deity.

For one thing it is literally a ROCK, didn’t have any images or decoration on it of any kind, and so couldn’t meaningfully be said to ‘represent’ a ‘person’. The idea that you even assume pagan gods were automatically considered to be ‘persons’ as we consider our God to be three persons in one shows your ignorance of pagan religions, mm.

I assumed no such thing. I was trying to make a point that Catholics treat their images no differently than the pagans; that like the pagans, their images are mere representations (I opted to use the word ‘persons’ rather than the more encompassing ‘gods’ because I know that Catholics also venerate images of Mary and the many ‘saints’ which you don’t consider as gods). Although I know of Catholics who also pray to rocks or trees that supposedly contain naturally imprinted images of Christ, I still said ‘persons’ because I know those people are not really praying to the rocks or trees but to the supposed Christ imprinted on those rocks and trees.

Now, I’m afraid you might call me ignorant too for saying Catholics [and pagans] venerate images of “wood and stone.” Please understand that saying ‘wood and stone’ does not limit the meaning to wood and stone only. The expression implies any material that can be fashioned into an image – metal, rubber, plastic, glass, earth or soil, minerals, bituminous substances, water [in the form of ice]. Even fruits and vegetables can be made into an image so that’s included.

They actually believed the Black Stone itself was the thing, was the deity, was the source of its own power…

Are you saying pagans don’t believe their images represent the gods they worship? I’m not talking here of rocks or trees that people think have some power or some god inhabiting in them. I am talking of images of living creatures. When pagans kneel before these images, are you saying they believe these images are the gods themselves? I hope you know that idol worship does not come in one form only.

Otherwise why bother destroying the Golden Calf? Surely the sophisticated Israelites could worship the ‘god’ of the Golden Calf just as easily without an image as with one. It was destroyed because destroying the image demonstrated that there was in fact no god contained within it - since a divine image couldn’t be destroyed, at least not without some divine vengeance resulting.

It was destroyed because God’s second commandment says: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” – the golden calf was a graven image – “of any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above…” – it was a likeness of a ‘thing’ in heaven above being their representation of the God who brought them out of Egyptian slavery (Ex. 32:4) – “Thou shalt not bow down to them…” – and they bowed down to it.

In short, the golden calf was destroyed because keeping it would be going against God’s second commandment.

No, it wasn’t easy for the Israelites to worship without an image because the natural mind cries out for something to help him in his worship of God – something to remind him of the invisible God – some “aid” to worship. In God’s eyes, a ‘divine image’ does not exist, that is why He gave His second commandment.

Now, had the Israelites worshipped “the ‘god’ of the Golden Calf” without using an image, and assuming that that ‘god’ was not the true God, which of God’s Ten Commandments would the Israelites have broken?

In the same manner the image of the Babylonian god Dagon fell a few times… Clearly if the Babylonians DIDN’T believe the image of Dagon was itself divine the destruction of this one image wouldn’t mean a thing to them. They’d simply have swept up the pieces, made another image (or brought one in from another of Dagon’s temples) and kept on their merry old way…

The ancient Babylonians were no different from people who venerate images today. Images are venerated because it is believed they possess some power.

And yes, there were statues of Nebuchadnezzar before which people had to bow. Why did Nebuchadnezzar not personally appear before the crowds and demand this worship directly for himself if he was genuinely convinced that he was divine?

What does that have to do with what I said about Nebuchadnezzar? And how do you know he did not personally appear before the crowds and demanded worship directly also, or that he was not genuinely convinced he was divine? I’m not disputing your opinion on this. I just want to know how you know about these things.

Now tell me - why did the Romans laugh at the tradition of deifying … A clue lies in the multiple meanings of the word ‘worship’. Did you know that there are STILL magistrates… Mind you, I don’t even ‘worship’ IMAGES of Christ or the Virgin or Saints in that sense of showing profound respect that I would to a magistrate. Not to the image itself. Not ever. The images are images, perhaps marginally more important to me than images of other subjects, and so treated with more care, but that care doesn’t indicate worship…

You can call it what you like. But it’s not how you call it but what you actually do that matters. A lawyer once used the same argument, using semantics to justify himself. He asked Jesus: “And who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29).

The commandment says: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them….”

It is clear from this commandment that we are forbidden to make any image of anything – not even an image of God [if there was one] – to bow down to it.

 

[jmcrae]

The fact that they thought the essence of God was in the golden calf shows that they did not think the golden calf itself was God but that it was a representation of God.

I am an artist who has been operating a studio since 1982, so I can tell you as a professional in the business, that there is a huge difference between a representation and an object that contains the essence of the thing being represented.

For example, there is an artist who at one time worked as an astronaut, who uses moon dust in his paintings. These paintings are not reproducible, because they contain the essence of the thing being represented. (The moon, in this case.)

However, my paintings, which are made entirely of paint, can be reproduced, because they contain no essences - they are purely representational.

Aaron went even further than the moon dust artist - not only did he not consider his Golden Calf to be reproducible; nor did he even consider it a “representation” - it was God, in the same way that he was Aaron.

Since we see reproductions of Catholic art everywhere we go, I think we can safely assume that Catholics consider the images to be reproducible, meaning that they don’t contain any essences that don’t transfer from one image to the next, regardless of what the next image happens to be made of (pixels vs. paint, for example).

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying pagans don’t believe their images represent the gods they worship?

By saying “represent” you are showing that you assume the pagans believed that the god itself was somewhere else, not located in the same space as the idol.

We are trying to explain to you that the pagans had no such concept - their god was not in their heart, or in heaven, or in any other invisible place. Their god was the idol. To break the idol was to cause the god to cease to exist - the idol was not “representing” anything - it was the thing.

 

[rcjones]

The point I was trying to make is that, contrary to what you, and many here believe, we can be certain of two things.

1. Jesus did not have long hair,

I am not so sure this is certain. It was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene:

Mt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Since modern theologians cannot find a prophecy of this, then either we lost part of the Bible, or their hermeneutic is insufficient.

The Nazarite was a shadow of Christ. He wore long hair precisely because it was a shame on men and Christ bore our shame on the cross. He refrained from wine and strong drink as a symbol that Christ partook of neither grace nor law, being beyond their reach as the source of law and grace. The Nazarite could touch no dead body , which is why Jesus was buried in a new grave.

Jesus took his Nazarite vow at the last supper, saying he would not drink until…

Since ‘Nazarite’ is Hebrew, and ‘Nazarine’ is Greek, and in the absence of any other prophecy that fits the bill, it is clear that this is the prophecy, hidden in the law of the Nazarite, referred to.

So it might be that Jesus did not have long hair, but is portrayed as such using the symbolism of the iconography to indicate he was the Nazarite fulfillment. Or it could be that he had long hair as well, as a recapitulation of the shadow of his later fulfillment of it.

 

[Mailman]

I am an artist who has been operating a studio since 1982, so I can tell you as a professional in the business, that there is a huge difference between a representation and an object that contains the essence of the thing being represented.

For example, there is an artist who at one time worked as an astronaut, who uses moon dust in his paintings. These paintings are not reproducible, because they contain the essence of the thing being represented. (The moon, in this case.)

However, my paintings, which are made entirely of paint, can be reproduced, because they contain no essences - they are purely representational.

Thanks for the explanation. I get your point.

Aaron went even further than the moon dust artist - not only did he not consider his Golden Calf to be reproducible; nor did he even consider it a “representation” - it was God, in the same way that he was Aaron.

We do not really know what was in Aaron’s and the Israelites’ minds. But if we try to figure this out based on the biblical account, we would have to conclude that the Golden Calf was to them only a representation of the God who brought them out of Egyptian slavery. Here’s why. Notice that they themselves made the Golden Calf out of jewelries in their possession. Would they have believed that they could make a god out of those jewelries?

If they had not made the golden calf themselves – for example if they had only stumbled upon the golden calf or it had dropped from the sky – it could be possible that they would consider it as God Himself, but not when they themselves made that image.

Since we see reproductions of Catholic art everywhere we go, I think we can safely assume that Catholics consider the images to be reproducible, meaning that they don’t contain any essences that don’t transfer from one image to the next, regardless of what the next image happens to be made of (pixels vs. paint, for example).

Some of these images, yes, but not all. Take for example the image of the Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico. I don’t think Catholic devotees consider that image reproducible. If they did, why bother protecting it in bullet proof glass? It is one of a kind because it was supposed to have been imprinted on that cloth miraculously. It is THE image that can cure sicknesses, etc., that’s why millions flock to that one particular image to pray for miracles, some even crawling on their knees for miles just to show their utmost devotion to it.

And there’s the statue of the Black Nazarene in the Philippines. That statue is not reproducible either. There may be replicas of the statue but the original is the one that, when touched, can heal diseases. Devotees during its procession even throw towels and handkerchiefs to the people guarding the statue so they can wipe them on the statue in hopes of getting its miraculous powers with them. They don’t do that to just any replica of the statue. No other statue of ‘Christ’, for them, has the power to do miracles.

 

[Mailman]

By saying “represent” you are showing that you assume the pagans believed that the god itself was somewhere else, not located in the same space as the idol.

I don’t see how my saying “represent” limits the god being represented to be located in another place. If some idol “represents” a god, what keeps that god from being on the same place as where that idol is standing?

We are trying to explain to you that the pagans had no such concept - their god was not in their heart, or in heaven, or in any other invisible place. Their god was the idol. To break the idol was to cause the god to cease to exist - the idol was not “representing” anything - it was the thing.

Some pagans, yes, but not all. We should not assume that all idolatry come in one form only.

Most pagans believe the god they are worshipping is not in the idol itself but somewhere else. Take for example, the worship of the goddess Diana. Pagans who worshipped her believed she lived in nature. She was everywhere where there was life as she is believed to be the mother of all living things. But she is worshipped in her temple and also in small shrines. If her devotees believed her image was the goddess herself, they would all have worshipped in one particular shrine only – that one where her image was supposed to have fallen from heaven.

There’s also the pagan worship of the Olympian god Apollo. The shrines of Apollo are everywhere – in Delphi, Branchidae, Claros, Patara, and in the island of Delos. Devotees worshipped in any one of these shrines.

Even the Bible tells of the worshippers of Baal beseeching him without the use of an idol. In 1 Kings 18:27, Elijah challenges the priests of Baal atop Mount Carmel to call upon their god Baal to perform a miracle. The priests did this without using Baal’s idol, showing that in some cases idolaters worshipped gods that existed independently of idols. Baal, to them, was one of the many gods that could be worshipped through the use of an idol, but not necessarily so.

 

[Mailman]

I am not so sure this is certain. It was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene:

Notice the prophecy says NazaRENE, not nazaRITE. A Nazarene is one who lives in Nazareth while a nazarite is one who has a nazarite vow.

Look at Matthew 2:23 again. It says that the reason Jesus “dwelt in a city called Nazareth” (He was actually from Bethlehem, having been born there) was to fulfill the prophecy that “He shall be called a Nazarene.” A Nazarene, therefore, is one who dwells in or, is an inhabitant of, Nazareth.

Since modern theologians cannot find a prophecy of this, then either we lost part of the Bible, or their hermeneutic is insufficient.

The prophecy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene was not written in the Scriptures. Matthew says the prophecy was “spoken by the prophets.” It was an ORAL prophecy that was authoritatively preserved from generation to generation by the priests.

The Nazarite was a shadow of Christ.

I would beg to disagree with this, too.

He wore long hair precisely because it was a shame on men and Christ bore our shame on the cross.

The nazarite could not have been “clothed” in shame by his long hair. How could it be shameful for one to give him/herself over to the service of God?

He refrained from wine and strong drink as a symbol that Christ partook of neither grace nor law, being beyond their reach as the source of law and grace.

But Christ drank wine during His earthly life (Mat. 11:18-19; Luke 5:29-30; Luke 7:34), so He did partake of grace and law. Why should the symbolism apply to the nazarite and not to Christ who is supposed to be the object of the symbolism?

The Nazarite could touch no dead body , which is why Jesus was buried in a new grave.

Even if it was not a new grave, the dead body of Jesus could not have “touched” another dead body. His being buried in a new grave has nothing at all to do with avoiding touching another dead body because of a nazarite vow.

Jesus took his Nazarite vow at the last supper, saying he would not drink until…

This is purely conjecture and is nowhere supported in Scripture. The wine that Jesus said He would not drink “until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” is the wine that He said “is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat. 26:28) – the wine partaken only during the [NT] Passover.

Christ led a perfect life while in human form so there was hardly any necessity for His making a vow to be of special service. If it was not necessary for Him to take the nazarite vow during His earthly life, why was it necessary after? The three things a nazarite is forbidden to do is cut his hair, drink wine, and touch a dead body – things that have to do with an earthly life. Christ, as we all know, has now been glorified and in heaven with the Father.

Since ‘Nazarite’ is Hebrew, and ‘Nazarine’ is Greek, and in the absence of any other prophecy that fits the bill, it is clear that this is the prophecy, hidden in the law of the Nazarite, referred to.

The Greek is Nazoraios, meaning a Nazoraean, that is, inhabitant of Nazareth (Strong’s). The word has nothing to do with the Hebrew naziyr or nazir which is translated ‘Nazarite’ in the OT.

 

[jmcrae]

The prophecy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene was not written in the Scriptures. Matthew says the prophecy was “spoken by the prophets.” It was an ORAL prophecy that was authoritatively preserved from generation to generation by the priests.

Right - which also points to the equal status of the Oral Tradition to the Scriptures.