The Last Image (Protestants)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Azygos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Azygos

Guest
Protestants with a forbidden image

The Bible is the Word of God. I am not disputing that or trying to say otherwise but I wanted to expound on this because I think it will be beneficial to everyone that has rejected the image of the cross or holy images all together.

If I take a book that is empty it cannot possibly be the Word of God, only when Gods Word (Scripture) is added to it, does it actually become the Word of God.

A Bible is the Word of God (Because of it’s content) but the Bible in and of itself is not the Word of God. This may sound a bit shocking/strange but it’s not that hard of a concept to understand. The Bible is Gods Word on paper. If you destroy this paper that contains Gods word then you are only destroying paper, God word still remains. In fact scripture says, ‘heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away’. So this cannot be in the strict literal sense, Gods Word. It is an “Image” of Gods Word. Gods Word is not limited to the confines of Scripture nor was scripture ever limited to Gods Word. For example, the Apostles preached the Word of God before the New Testament even existed.

The reason I am drawing this out and making this correlation is not to dispute that the Bible is Gods Word, but to display the Bible as an image of Gods Word. A Holy Image in fact, which contains Gods revealed Word to us, thus we call it Gods Word. The Bible is a Holy Image of Gods Word revealed to us, by the Prophets of God.

This is important to know when so many protestant religions say that Holy Images are prohibited. What do they think their Bible is? Is it not called a ‘Holy’ Bible? Surely they don’t think Gods Word is limited to Paper and Ink…? I would have to assert while the Bible is the Word of God, it is still only an Image (Representation) of Gods revealed word. If a Bible gets destroyed Gods Word still remains. When the planet passes away Gods Word will still remain. In the beginning was the Word…

If I have lost my mind and gone astray please feel free to correct me but this makes sense to me. I would say that those Protestants that forbid all Holy Images still have one and that is the Holy Bible.
 
I think you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. Here was my thought on it. Along that line of reasoning the OT would be a Holy Image also. Continuing it back so would the original 10 Words (Commandments). Would God have his prophet write “You will make no graven image” on a graven image? I wouldn’t think so.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I think you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. Here was my thought on it. Along that line of reasoning the OT would be a Holy Image also. Continuing it back so would the original 10 Words (Commandments). Would God have his prophet write “You will make no graven image” on a graven image? I wouldn’t think so.
Click to expand...
God commanded graven images, i.e the Cherubim that adorned the Ark of the Covenant. As well, He commanded Moses to have the bronze serpent made so that those who looked upon it would be healed from the desert snake bites. So, such iconoclasts, ancient or modern, do not have a problem with the Catholic Church - they have a problem with God. Sobering thought.
 
po18guy said:
God commanded graven images, i.e the Cherubim that adorned the Ark of the Covenant. As well, He commanded Moses to have the bronze serpent made so that those who looked upon it would be healed from the desert snake bites. So, such iconoclasts, ancient or modern, do not have a problem with the Catholic Church - they have a problem with God. Sobering thought.
Click to expand...
How true. I was more in the line of logic that the Word of God is God. And therefore a graven image of God would be prohibited.

I’m not saying the original post is right or wrong, just an exercise in logic if we were to continue down that path. It’s an interesting discussion.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
I think you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. Here was my thought on it. Along that line of reasoning the OT would be a Holy Image also. Continuing it back so would the original 10 Words (Commandments). Would God have his prophet write “You will make no graven image” on a graven image? I wouldn’t think so.
Click to expand...
Full Question:
Why does the Catholic Church permit the use of statues for religious purposes in defiance of God’s prohibition against the carving of statues in Exodus 20:4-5?

Answer:

The Catholic Church does not defy any of God’s commandments. Your question reveals an ignorance of the biblical facts surrounding statues. In Exodus 20:4 God condemned the carving of statues for the sake of worshipping them as idols–a blasphemy the Catholic Church also condemns. In Exodus 25:18-20, on the other hand, God commands Moses to carve statues for a religious purpose: two cherubim which would sit atop the Ark of the Covenant.

Notice that these angelic images were to serve such an exalted purpose (not because the statues themselves were in any way intrinsically exalted but because of the use to which they would be put) that God was very exacting in the instructions he gave Moses as to the materials to be used and the posture in which they were to be carved. Similar divine commands to carve statues and embroider images of various religious objects are found in Exodus 21:6-9, Numbers 21:6-9, 1 Kings 6:23-28, and 1 Kings 7:23- 39. In each case, the statue or embroidered image was intended by God for a religious use.

Although the worship of anything, not just statues, in place of the True God is idolatry, there are times when statues are not just tolerable but recommended. Just as those Old Testament statues were ordered fashioned by God to reminded the Israelites of heavenly realities, Catholic statues of Jesus and the angels and the saints serve the same purpose.

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-can-the-church-allow-statues-when-exodus-20-forbids-it
 
God did not forbid the use of Religious Images so the Old Testament if my logic is sound would still be a Religious Image, the same as the 10 Commandments. God forbids idolatry, not images…
 
ChurchSoldier said:
How true. I was more in the line of logic that the Word of God is God. And therefore a graven image of God would be prohibited.

I’m not saying the original post is right or wrong, just an exercise in logic if we were to continue down that path. It’s an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...
God did not forbid the use of Religious Images so the Old Testament if my logic is sound would still be a Religious Image, the same as the 10 Commandments.

I have to ask, Is the Bible Gods Word or a written representation (Image) of Gods Word? That and I don’t think an Image of Gods revealed Word would be idolatry or a ‘Graven Image’ as you called it. Remember, God forbids Idolatry not Holy Images, especially Not the Holy Images he reveals to us.
 
Azygos said:
Protestants with a forbidden image

… everyone that has rejected the image of the cross or holy images all together.

…This is important to know when so many protestant religions say that Holy Images are prohibited…

…those Protestants that forbid all Holy Images …
Click to expand...
Azygos—

I question your whole belief that “so many protestant religions …” “reject”, “prohibit” and “forbid” images of the cross or holy images. Which churches, specifically, do you think do this, and how many churches are you talking about?

I’ve been a visitor in many non-Catholic churches throughout much of the US, as well as some Anglican churches in the UK. To specifically name some of the larger churches, I’ve been a visitor (occasional or more frequent) in Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Baptist, Moravian, Mennonite and Pentecostal churches, along with smaller Evangelical derivatives from mainline churches. That about covers the great majority of churches that aren’t Catholic or Orthodox. Without exception, I’ve never seen a church without any sort of religious art. Every church I’ve been in has had crosses and some other form of images for devotional purposes. The more moderately well-off churches usually have stained glass and often a large painting of Christ behind the pulpit. If they can’t afford that kind of artwork, they still have prints of Christ on the walls and some other alternative art such as colorful banners.

Who exactly do you mean to be addressing?
 
AbideWithMe said:
Azygos—

I question your whole belief that “so many protestant religions …” “reject”, “prohibit” and “forbid” images of the cross or holy images. Which churches, specifically, do you think do this, and how many churches are you talking about?

I’ve been a visitor in many non-Catholic churches throughout much of the US, as well as some Anglican churches in the UK. To specifically name some of the larger churches, I’ve been a visitor (occasional or more frequent) in Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Baptist, Moravian, Mennonite and Pentecostal churches, along with smaller Evangelical derivatives from mainline churches. That about covers the great majority of churches that aren’t Catholic or Orthodox. Without exception, I’ve never seen a church without any sort of religious art. Every church I’ve been in has had crosses and some other form of images for devotional purposes. The more moderately well-off churches usually have stained glass and often a large painting of Christ behind the pulpit. If they can’t afford that kind of artwork, they still have prints of Christ on the walls and some other alternative art such as colorful banners.

Who exactly do you mean to be addressing?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what denomination they are… There are so many denominations that I don’t even try to keep track of their beliefs but I know that their are a good number of them that forbid all images or most images. Start talking to people on Facebook and you will find out rather fast what some of these fundamental protestant sects believe, which usually entails a you are the whore of babylon comment, lol…
 
Azygos said:
I’m not sure what denomination they are… There are so many denominations that I don’t even try to keep track of their beliefs but I know that their are a good number of them that forbid all images or most images. Start talking to people on Facebook and you will find out rather fast what some of these fundamental protestant sects believe, which usually entails a you are the whore of babylon comment, lol…
Click to expand...
Hmm…when you interact with them on Facebook, can you ask them to tell you what church, if any, they represent?

Forbidding worship of images is common to all Christian churches. But forbidding the use of artwork as a devotional help in churches and homes is not common among non-Catholics. Unfortunately, responses on internet sites such Facebook can give an inaccurate idea of what the majority of non-Catholic Christians believe and practice.

I think, if I recall correctly, that the Amish don’t have religious artwork. I might be remembering wrongly here, but, I think some Church of Christ congregations don’t use religious artwork either. If I’m correct about some Church of Christ congregations, though, they don’t represent the majority of us non-Catholic Christians, by any means. If there are other churches which forbid devotional artwork, I’m curious to hear of them.

I’m sorry if people are being unreasonable with you on Facebook. 😦
 
Azygos said:
God did not forbid the use of Religious Images so the Old Testament if my logic is sound would still be a Religious Image, the same as the 10 Commandments.

I have to ask, Is the Bible Gods Word or a written representation (Image) of Gods Word? That and I don’t think an Image of Gods revealed Word would be idolatry or a ‘Graven Image’ as you called it. Remember, God forbids Idolatry not Holy Images, especially Not the Holy Images he reveals to us.
Click to expand...
You would think that God inscribed the King James Version on those stone tablets! What I notice is that, since the reformation and its entropic effect on the Body of Christ, the bible has supplanted the Eucharist as the presence of Christ in many communities. Catholics, for their part, have tended to put less emphasis on scripture, as they hear it at each mass, and because Christ is present at each mass in the Holy Eucharist. Less emphasis on scripture is not good, but the evangelical/fundamentalist elevation of the bible to be the presence of God risks idolatry, as I see it. This was made very clear to me in the introduction of a mid-70s bible that my mother had. It ascribed human, or even deific qualities to scripture itself. It is also clear that many denominations view the bible as a divinely-inspired self-help book. In fact, reference pages exist at the beginning of some, expecting that it will be used as some sort of heavenly trouble-shooting guide against worldly problems.

Bottom line is that each and every letter of scripture which we have today is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, subject to the errors of those copyists and having been translated numerous times into other languages and many more times into more modern forms of those languages (over as much as 3,250 years, in the case of the books of Moses). Any originals are long gone. How can we be assured that what we view as the bible today bears any resemblance to what the Lord inspired the original author to write? The answer is the Church. She has preserved the meaning of the scriptures as part of the sacred deposit of faith. I thank the Lord that He gave us His Church.
 
Azygos said:
Protestants with a forbidden image

The Bible is the Word of God. I am not disputing that or trying to say otherwise but I wanted to expound on this because I think it will be beneficial to everyone that has rejected the image of the cross or holy images all together.

If I take a book that is empty it cannot possibly be the Word of God, only when Gods Word (Scripture) is added to it, does it actually become the Word of God.

A Bible is the Word of God (Because of it’s content) but the Bible in and of itself is not the Word of God. This may sound a bit shocking/strange but it’s not that hard of a concept to understand. The Bible is Gods Word on paper. If you destroy this paper that contains Gods word then you are only destroying paper, God word still remains. In fact scripture says, ‘heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away’. So this cannot be in the strict literal sense, Gods Word. It is an “Image” of Gods Word. Gods Word is not limited to the confines of Scripture nor was scripture ever limited to Gods Word. For example, the Apostles preached the Word of God before the New Testament even existed.

The reason I am drawing this out and making this correlation is not to dispute that the Bible is Gods Word, but to display the Bible as an image of Gods Word. A Holy Image in fact, which contains Gods revealed Word to us, thus we call it Gods Word. The Bible is a Holy Image of Gods Word revealed to us, by the Prophets of God.

This is important to know when so many protestant religions say that Holy Images are prohibited. What do they think their Bible is? Is it not called a ‘Holy’ Bible? Surely they don’t think Gods Word is limited to Paper and Ink…? I would have to assert while the Bible is the Word of God, it is still only an Image (Representation) of Gods revealed word. If a Bible gets destroyed Gods Word still remains. When the planet passes away Gods Word will still remain. In the beginning was the Word…

If I have lost my mind and gone astray please feel free to correct me but this makes sense to me. I would say that those Protestants that forbid all Holy Images still have one and that is the Holy Bible.
Click to expand...
I thought I might had the clarification that Lutheranism has always opposed iconoclasm.
a wonderful video featuring LCMS President (Bishop) Matthew Harrison.

youtube.com/watch?v=lizfznY63Yk

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I thought I might had the clarification that Lutheranism has always opposed iconoclasm.
a wonderful video featuring LCMS President (Bishop) Matthew Harrison.

youtube.com/watch?v=lizfznY63Yk

Jon
Click to expand...
That is a beautiful church… Although, from my understanding Lutherans do not have Valid Holy orders… so when he was talking about the Eucharist and Confession, I’m not sure they would be Valid.
 
Azygos said:
That is a beautiful church… Although, from my understanding Lutherans do not have Valid Holy orders… so when he was talking about the Eucharist and Confession, I’m not sure they would be Valid.
Click to expand...
Well, not from a Catholic perspective. We have no doubt as to the validity of our clergy and sacraments.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Well, not from a Catholic perspective. We have no doubt as to the validity of our clergy and sacraments.

Jon
Click to expand...
How can you call yourself a Catholic and a Lutheran? Is that not a contradiction? If you’re Catholic then be Catholic… If you’re a Lutheran then be Lutheran… If the Lutheran Church is Catholic then why do they name themselves Lutheran? Why not just call themselves Catholic? They need to either be Catholic or Lutheran. They can’t have it both ways…

1 Cor. 1
10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
(Prime example: Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation)

11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.

12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” (Or, I belong to the Lutheran Church, ie Martin Luthers Church? Or do you NOT belong to the Lutheran Church?)

13 Is Christ divided? (Paraphrased)
 
=Azygos;10427097]How can you call yourself a Catholic and a Lutheran? Is that not a contradiction? If you’re Catholic then be Catholic… If you’re a Lutheran then be Lutheran… If the Lutheran Church is Catholic then why do they name themselves Lutheran? Why not just call themselves Catholic? They need to either be Catholic or Lutheran. They can’t have it both ways…
Click to expand...
The Reformers alway s considered themselves Catholic, and so do I, as part of the One HOly Catholic and Apostolic Church. Evangelical catholic is a term typically used by what one might call “high church” Lutherans.
1 Cor. 1
10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
(Prime example: Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation)
Click to expand...
That Lutherans do not teach consubstantiation aside, what we do agree on is the real presence. There seems more agreementthan disagreement here, but for sure, the metaphysical apporach is not our approach.
11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
Click to expand...
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” (Or, I belong to the Lutheran Church, ie Martin Luthers Church? Or do you NOT belong to the Lutheran Church?)
Click to expand...
13 Is Christ divided? (Paraphrased)
Click to expand...
I belong to Christ’s Church, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is not Luther’s Church, though Luther was certainly a member. Whether we discern ourselves as Evangelical Catholic, Lutheran, Catholic of the Augsburg Confession, is just a name. What we preach is Christ crucified, as to you.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top