Jewish Friend asked me about this "discrepency"

[jcrichton]

In Ezekiel 1:26, the prophet said of God, he saw “a likeness like the appearance of a man.” In Daniel 7:9, the prophet said of God, the Ancient of days, “the hair on his head like pure wool,” i.e., white.

To say that it ok to have the mental image of God as an old, white-haired man and it is ok to write it and read it and say it but not ok to paint scenes from the Bible depicting God as an old, white-haired man seems to be illogical to me.

Hi, Todd!

Exactly!

…it is as though since we know that oxygen is used to fuel our bodies we should not breath in air because it contains gases other than oxygen.

We must take the whole of Scriptures into consideration–always reminding ourselves that God’s Revelation to man is not meant to limit God but to offer man the means for understanding that which God seeks to Reveal!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

Hi, P!

…this is an excellent example of what a non-graven image means/looks like!

…the serpents were a curse for their disloyalty to Yahweh God… and God Commanded Moses to create a replica symbol of the creature that caused the Hebrews so much anguish, fear and death… and He Commanded that in order to be “saved” from the torment of the venom and pending death, once bitten, they had to look upon the image (not graven) of the serpent.

Maran atha!

Angel

Perhaps I should have used “will live” rather than “be saved” as that is the most frequently used translation. Yet, this all points to the error of using a dictionary, or language study in “reverse engineering” the faith from the partial written record. Such attempts are made necessary by the reformation’s rejection of both the Apostolic Tradition as well as the authority of Christ’s Church in the interpretation of scripture - particularly if (easily twisted, i.e. 2 Peter 3:16) scripture is all that you have left of the original deposit of faith.

Now, as to interpretation, let us look to Nehemiah 8:5-8. Ezra and the scribes spoke to the gathered people and read the Mosaic Law, “giving the sense” so that the people could understand. Only those with authority interpreted, and only then, under the direction and control of Ezra. Sounds rather like Pope and Council. Public confession of sin comes in Nehemiah 9. One completely misses the Catholic Church in scripture if they are not looking for her. Especially so if they willingly ignore scripture in order to deny her.

 

[jcrichton]

Perhaps I should have used “will live” rather than “be saved” as that is the most frequently used translation. Yet, this all points to the error of using a dictionary, or language study in “reverse engineering” the faith from the partial written record. Such attempts are made necessary by the reformation’s rejection of both the Apostolic Tradition as well as the authority of Christ’s Church in the interpretation of scripture - particularly if (easily twisted, i.e. 2 Peter 3:16) scripture is all that you have left of the original deposit of faith.

Now, as to interpretation, let us look to Nehemiah 8:5-8. Ezra and the scribes spoke to the gathered people and read the Mosaic Law, “giving the sense” so that the people could understand. Only those with authority interpreted, and only then, under the direction and control of Ezra. Sounds rather like Pope and Council. Public confession of sin comes in Nehemiah 9. One completely misses the Catholic Church in scripture if they are not looking for her. Especially so if they willingly ignore scripture in order to deny her.

Hi, P!

…actually, I think for this particular purpose the terms are interchangeable… I specially played on that since the Hebrews would be saved/live and Believers will gain Salvation/Live eternally… the object of the matter is Obedience to God!

Nothing is impure less we make it impure (it is not money but the love of money that corrupts; it is not the image but the idolatry of the image that corrupts); the serpent/cross did not give life/saved but Obedience to God’s Command Saves/Brings Life!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

Hi, P!

…actually, I think for this particular purpose the terms are interchangeable… I specially played on that since the Hebrews would be saved/live and Believers will gain Salvation/Live eternally… the object of the matter is Obedience to God!

Nothing is impure less we make it impure (it is not money but the love of money that corrupts; it is not the image but the idolatry of the image that corrupts); the serpent/cross did not give life/saved but Obedience to God’s Command Saves/Brings Life!

Maran atha!

Angel

Agreed. It seems that “saved” has become inextricably intertwined with the New Covenant. Perhaps the next time a fundamentalist asks if I have been ‘saved’, I will answer, “Yes! I have looked upon the image of him Who has been lifted up!”

 

[Wesrock]

After providing him a link to this thread, he feels that no one is addressing the crux of the matter: How do Catholics justify painting images of God (think Sistine chapel) when God (according to this text) expressly forbids it.

It was due to the hardness of their hearts and their coming just out of paganism that all graven images were forbidden, and neither was it possible to paint the invisible, incomprehensible God. Still, did not God instruct Moses to carve a serpent that snake-bitten victims could look to for healing, and did not God instruct the carving of the cherubim over the ark of the covenant, and was not the temple veil decorated with Heavenly images? Even in the time of Moses, graven images was not a straight black and white issue. The intended target was idols for a people prone to idolatry.

In the fullness of time, after the chosen people had matured (especially in Exile), God chose to reveal his image in the Son who walked among us. The incarnatiom, God-made-flesh, made the invisible visible. “He who sees me sees the Father,” Jesus said. God Himself made an image for Himself, and so we can depict the Son, who is the image of the Father. The children had matured out of idolatry, and the prohibition of images no longer neededx especially since God made for Himself an image.

John of Damascus defended the use of Christian icons of the Jesus, his mother, and the saints at length.

I’m not certain how I feel about images of the Father, for only the Son was made flesh, and even John of Damascus did not go so far himself, but if the Son is the image of the Father, some have taken to depicting the Father as an older Jesus (age difference to emphasize the relationship between them).

 

[jcrichton]

Agreed. It seems that “saved” has become inextricably intertwined with the New Covenant. Perhaps the next time a fundamentalist asks if I have been ‘saved’, I will answer, “Yes! I have looked upon the image of him Who has been lifted up!”

Hi, P!


I think that part of the problem we have is that we do not own the terms… so when non-Catholics calls us out we seldom respond in a manner that would cause them to think (beyond the old stereo types they’ve form of Catholic’s and Catholic theology).

However, we must be ready to give reason for our “Salvation.” Appropriating a clause/Scripture/prayer format is not “Salvation!”

…but an affirmative response to their query may provide for an opportunity to engage them and share our Faith!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It was due to the hardness of their hearts and their coming just out of paganism that all** graven images **were forbidden, and neither was it possible to paint the invisible, incomprehensible God. Still, did not God instruct Moses to carve a serpent that snake-bitten victims could look to for healing, and did not God instruct the carving of the cherubim over the ark of the covenant, and was not the temple veil decorated with Heavenly images? Even in the time of Moses, graven images was not a straight black and white issue. The intended target was idols for a people prone to idolatry.

In the fullness of time, after the chosen people had matured (especially in Exile), God chose to reveal his image in the Son who walked among us. The incarnatiom, God-made-flesh, made the invisible visible. “He who sees me sees the Father,” Jesus said. God Himself made an image for Himself, and so we can depict the Son, who is the image of the Father. The children had matured out of idolatry, and the prohibition of images no longer neededx especially since God made for Himself an image.

John of Damascus defended the use of Christian icons of the Jesus, his mother, and the saints at length.

I’m not certain how I feel about images of the Father, for only the Son was made flesh, and even John of Damascus did not go so far himself, but if the Son is the image of the Father, some have taken to depicting the Father as an older Jesus (age difference to emphasize the relationship between them).

Hi!

…but the problem is that *graven images does not mean all *images and the error simply crept in!

…it is as the parable of the prodigal son… many people mistake the issue with “leaving home” when the issue is the extravagant wasteful and reckless expenditure of funds/resources (talents [abilities] and time [youth]).

…as for depicting the Father (or God in general), we do have several images in Scriptures–these images have been Inspired by the Holy Spirit… they remain images depicting God and only become an issue if we turn them into graven images (worshiping them as if they were God).

Sadly, this very fact escapes many as they in deed place images/values in a level of worship…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Apparently while a Jewish friend and I were looking at scripture, we noticed a difference between the two versions of Exodus. The verses in question come after Exodus: 20:19 and forward. He was inquiring why. Here they are:

chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9881 Jewish Version

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A1-23&version=NIV Christian Version.

Can someone explain?

Excellent answers on here specifically Jcrighton and po18guy. Perhaps you should show this thread to your Jewish friend or invite him to join CAF.