Are Religious Images blessed? Christ portrait Miracle in Wakefield suggests it.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You need to educate yourself a little better into History of Christianism, the fact that something do not pertain to the hard line of Protestantism means it belongs to Roman Catholicism.

Baptists it is my understanding to a very different kind of Reform than the one of Martin Luther's, they maybe can be linked to Zwingli or Calvin though.

Even they claim connection with Templars, Albigenses and Gnostics.

Also take a good course on mathematical logic, the fact that an Angel of Light maybe a demon in disguise Does Not imply all Angels of Light are Demons, you are dustorting tge sense of that scripture, remember in the beginning there was the Light, it was clearly said by John in his gospel.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You need to educate yourself a little better into History of Christianism, the fact that something do not pertain to the hard line of Protestantism means it belongs to Roman Catholicism.

Baptists it is my understanding to a very different kind of Reform than the one of Martin Luther's, they maybe can be linked to Zwingli or Calvin though.

Even they claim connection with Templars, Albigenses and Gnostics.

Also take a good course on mathematical logic, the fact that an Angel of Light maybe a demon in disguise Does Not imply all Angels of Light are Demons, you are dustorting tge sense of that scripture, remember in the beginning there was the Light, it was clearly said by John in his gospel.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You need to educate yourself a little better into History of Christianism, the fact that something do not pertain to the hard line of Protestantism Does Not mean necessarily it belongs to Roman Catholicism.

Baptists it is my understanding belong to a very different kind of Reform than the one of Martin Luther's, they maybe can be linked to Zwingli or Calvin though.

Even they claim connection with Templars, Albigenses, Chatars and Gnostics, so at least three centuries earlier.

Also take a good course on mathematical logic, and Philosophy, your inferences are wrongly constructed. You can add them to the Anthropology and History of civilization courses I already suggested you to enroll in too.

The fact that an Angel of Light maybe a demon in disguise Does Not imply all Angels of Light are Demons, a very obvious contradiction, since the Light itself is Christ and any messenger from him is an Angel.

You are distorting gravely the sense of that scripture until the very boundaries of Heresy, remember in The beginning there was the Word, which contains the life, that is the Light of the world, it was clearly said by John in his gospel.

The Angel of Lightness

John 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

a reply to: The angel of light

Your understanding of Baptists, dabbing away at Calvinism and Zwinglis infant baptism indicates you have no theological training at all

You might want to better educate yourself in Christianity

As has been suggested, would the portrait butn if set on fire buy its owner

a reply to: Raggedyman

Probably what you want to say is that I may not have profesional training in religious proselitism of Baptism.

I have had Baptist friends though and even attended their services, they are very polite and friendly with guests, a lot more than what you definitively are, never trying to attack others beliefs by the way.

The ideas I have expressed are not entirely of my own recollection, are opinions formed on what I have heard while invited to their meetings.

I was very cautious to express them as a comment, not a lecture in the topic, so no need to be so rude.

On what I am sure is that a fundamental of Christian values is to show love, respect and charity for every body.

I still feel too much arrogance in your replies, like if somebody here would be launching a kind of anti Protestant crusade, if that thing exists.

I am wondering what kind Baptist are you? Even doubtful if you are really one.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

You know what I read in your op
I read, " look a baptist portrait of Jesus didn't burn, it's a miracle, baptists are like Catholics, your icons are protected"
I am not a baptist, I know and have studied baptist theology, it's sound.
There is a chasm of difference between baptists and Catholics

I was once a Catholic, while I don't have issues with most Catholics I find the organisation a disease, a poisonous religios disease
What makes me sad is people like you who ignore the damage and destruction they have caused, why?
My guess, because your faith is in the church, paintings, statues and your laws, not in Christ

Catholics don't teach people to be better and grow in Christ, just in submission to the church

a reply to: Raggedyman

Veneration of images or icons is as old as the Christian faith itself, all churches with Apostolic tradition until the 1st century practice it:

Coptic's of Egypt, Eritrea, and Ethiopia, Armenians, all Orthodox ( Eastern Europe, Greeks, Cypriots, Russia, Middle East) , all oriental Christians ( Assyrians, Indians, Chaldeans, etc) , as well as Anglicans ( Episcopalians, Church of England, even many Presbyteran and Methodists).

Only the Evangelical Lutheran Churches believe use of Images is a kind of Idolatry.

I am surprised that you assume that is exclusively a Roman Catholic tradition.

There is nothing in the Opening post of this thread that talks about Catholicism, or promotes it in any aspect, so it is absurd with all respect you blame me for nothing you don't like of them.

I am not against Any Christian denomination, my interest is just to refer to traditions in Christianism that can be traced back to the very times of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

That's just flat out wrong, the Eastern Orthodox Church yes but none of the Protestant churches do
A friend of mine is an ex Anglican minister and he is against venerating anything, even the written word
You are lying or just ignorant

And so you understand, I know many God fearing loving Catholics, it's the organisation I despise
There are other denominations I disagree with

Go read Luthers 95 Thesis

a reply to: The angel of light

you are dustorting tge sense of that scripture, remember in the beginning there was the Light,

See even that you can't get right. 1st there was the void and dark then on the 2nd day was the "evening and the morning"


But again your deflecting with selective responses to my previous post.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I think our Catholic friend is trying to overreach
Stating Baptists get their teachings from Cathars, Gnostics albiegiers and Calvin
Poor lad is very confused
He got Zwingli right but he called so many names he had to get one right

There is a Duning Kruger (how I like those big words) personality on display
Kind of sad that the angel doesn't see how foolish he is being

A painting didn't burn, it means nothing other than the fire didn't get to it
Do you really think other pictures of Jesus in the building didn't burn either, why save just one

a reply to: Raggedyman

Church of England and all their different derivational branches ( Episcopalian, Anglican, Methodists) officially use icons or images, even sculptures.

If an ex member of any of them do not like images that is his very personal preference, is a subjective opinion, not a theological dogma..

I lived in England when I was a Child and the WestMinster Abbey or St Paul Cathedral in London are full of religious imagery, from the best British artists by the way.

You are trying to enlarge artificially the group of sects that are against any artistic religious representation.

Why I would read the theses of Luther in Germany?, this is a discussion of an English denomination brought to America by the way!

They are essentially anachronic and out of context on this subject, they correspond to religious issues of the beginning of XVI century in continental Europe not of England in the ending of XVII century or of now in America.

Baptism is Not a Lutheran denomination at all, they were English Puritans that separated from the church of England, not from the Roman Catholic, so nothing to do with the German Reform you refer to, that happened almost two centuries before.

Their problem was Not with the Pope but with Henry VIIIth and his daughter Elizabeth the First of Britain that were Not Popes but General governors of the Church of England. No woman has ever been Pope by the way.

They may adopted latter some Calvinist ideas, as well as mixed with Cathar or Albighenses survivals in switzerland but nothing really from Luther, so their influence is the Swiss reform not the turmoil that Luther fired in Germany.

Pls Check

www.britannica.com...

I'm sorry if you didn't know this but about 40% at least of the so called American Protestants came from a schism of the Church of England that divided in the end of XVII century, nothing to do with Rome, so Baptism is not good fuel at all for your anti Catholic passion or obsession.

Quackers, Baptists, Methodists, presbytereans were all British in origin that separated from the religious rule of the Episcopalian Church. Even many Catholics in America that are of Irish, English or Scottish ancestry are descendants of settlers escaped too from England during the Anglican repression. The State of Maryland was founded by those dissidents.

You are extremely disoriented in History of Protestantism as well, They are not a church but a great diversity of them, with extremely different origins grouped under that same name only to distinguish them from Oriental, Eastern,and Catholic Christians.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Arguing would be pointless, believe what you want
You havnt a clue

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sure, after your plot was uncovered thinking that you were dealing with an amateur you strategically want to quit the discussion, since arguing is not the term, I unmasked each one of your smart lies one by one but I taught you what is respect to others beliefs.

Who has been exposed here to don't have more than blind arrogance to debate ideas are you, teach yourself what you pretend to teach others by the way, your ignorance on fundamental theological differences among Chiristian denominations jump out of the page.

I am so sorry but your attempt to deviate this discussion in to your rejection to another denomination that is even not related at all in the situation we are discussing failed.

You have certain personal obsession against a religious organization that you have decided is you favorite villain by the way, that is what blind you, there were Not just only one reform, but various and the one that occurred in England from which Baptist creed come was against the official Church of England, therefore they splitted from Anglicanism.

All Puritans that came to America in XVII were Anglican dissidents that rejected the rule of the King or Queen on faith aspects.

Agitate religious hatred or enmity is not Christian at all, and that is precisely what you tried here to do. This thread was created to honor a Miracle of faith granted to the Baptist faith.

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Raggedyman

Sure, after your plot was uncovered thinking that you were dealing with an amateur you strategically want to quit the discussion, since arguing is not the term, I unmasked each one of your smart lies one by one but I taught you what is respect to others beliefs.

Who has been exposed here to don't have more than blind arrogance to debate ideas are you, teach yourself what you pretend to teach others by the way, your ignorance on fundamental theological differences among Chiristian denominations jump out of the page.

I am so sorry but your attempt to deviate this discussion in to your rejection to another denomination that is even not related at all in the situation we are discussing failed.

You have certain personal obsession against a religious organization that you have decided is you favorite villain by the way, that is what blind you, there were Not just only one reform, but various and the one that occurred in England from which Baptist creed come was against the official Church of England, therefore they splitted from Anglicanism.

All Puritans that came to America in XVII were Anglican dissidents that rejected the rule of the King or Queen on faith aspects.

Agitate religious hatred or enmity is not Christian at all, and that is precisely what you tried here to do. This thread was created to honor a Miracle of faith granted to the Baptist faith.

The Angel of Lightness

You are not an amateur you are wrong

In Germany the adherents of the Reformation preferred the name evangelicals and in France Huguenots. The name was attached not only to the disciples of Martin Luther (c. 1483–1546) but also to the Swiss disciples of Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) and later of John Calvin (1509–64).Sep 21, 2018 Wikipedia Calvin being French origin influenced the Presbyterians of Scotland

"The Puritans were English Reformed Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who sought to "purify" the Church of England from its "Catholic" practices, maintaining that the Church of England was only partially reformed. Puritanism played a significant role in English history, especially during The Protectorate." Wikipedia
So Puritanism is English but they were not the only Protestant church from Europe to the US


But not all European Protestants were Puritans
Look at the Ana Baptists, the Mennonite, Amish Lutheran Germans
French had the Waldensians who immigrated to the New world
All churches still active in the US now

But whatever floats your boat

Baptists dont worship idols like catholics and to suggest that is a lie

a reply to: Raggedyman

a reply to: The angel of light
Your understanding of Baptists, dabbing away at Calvinism and Zwinglis infant baptism indicates you have no theological training at all You might want to better educate yourself in Christianity As has been suggested, would the portrait butn if set on fire buy its owner

An interesting conversation to say the least.

Is it possible that the Satan could deceive people with what appears to be miracles? If a person that believed not a whim of the God of Jesus would deceive others by the power of laying hands upon the sick and the sick recovering, could not Satan afflict the sickness and withdraw the sickness to credit the deceiver?

In this event, could this be possible [to influence Christians] in that Satan could have influenced the fire and protected the portrait to accredit a false miracle? From religious studies it seems that Satan, not able to create, is able to deceive quite effectively.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Raggedyman

a reply to: The angel of light
Your understanding of Baptists, dabbing away at Calvinism and Zwinglis infant baptism indicates you have no theological training at all You might want to better educate yourself in Christianity As has been suggested, would the portrait butn if set on fire buy its owner

An interesting conversation to say the least.

Is it possible that the Satan could deceive people with what appears to be miracles? If a person that believed not a whim of the God of Jesus would deceive others by the power of laying hands upon the sick and the sick recovering, could not Satan afflict the sickness and withdraw the sickness to credit the deceiver?

In this event, could this be possible [to influence Christians] in that Satan could have influenced the fire and protected the portrait to accredit a false miracle? From religious studies it seems that Satan, not able to create, is able to deceive quite effectively.

Jesus didnt come to deal with politics or things, Jesus came for individuals

Question: "What does it mean that a house divided cannot stand?"

Answer: There are three accounts in the Gospels in which Jesus states that a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste or a house divided cannot stand (Luke 11:17; Mark 3:25; Matthew 12:25). All three instances of this statement are spoken in response to the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Satan—a blasphemy that Jesus said would not be forgiven them.
www.gotquestions.org...

Catholics are very political, Jesus wasnt
Catholics are into idols, Jesus wasnt


I would expect demons would cause "miracles" like statues crying, bleeding or moving but not healings of people

As for a portrait that didnt burn, nearly a whole church burned down, who cares about a picture that escaped the fire, surely other things did as well.

Myth 6: God Approves of the Use of Images and Icons in Worship

What is the origin of the myth?

“Images were unknown in the worship of the primitive Christians . . . The admission of images into the church in the 4th and 5th centuries was justified on the theory that the ignorant people could learn the facts of Christianity from them better than from sermons or books.”— Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by McClintock and Strong, Volume 4, pages 503 and 504.

What does the Bible say?

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.” (Exodus 20:4, 5, The Holy Bible​—New International Version) The apostle John wrote to first-century Christians: “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”​—1 John 5:21.

Are images, as the churches claim, simply a means of approaching and honoring what they represent? “At first,” states The Encyclopedia of Religion, “images may have served primarily didactic [teaching] and decorative purposes; at least, they were defended on such grounds. But soon they came to fill admittedly devotional functions. This was especially true of the icons that became a prominent feature of Eastern Orthodoxy.” However, the prophet Isaiah rightly asked: “To whom can you compare God? What image can you contrive of him?”​—Isaiah 40:18, The New Jerusalem Bible.

Compare these Bible verses: Isaiah 44:13-19; Acts 10:25, 26; 17:29; 2 Corinthians 5:7

FACT:

God does not approve of the use of images and icons

Images

Definition: Usually, visible representations of persons or things. An image that is an object of worship is an idol. Those who perform acts of worship before images often say that their worship actually is directed to the spirit being represented by the image. Such use of images is customary in many non-Christian religions. Regarding Roman Catholic practice, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. VII, p. 372) says: “Since the worship given to an image reaches and terminates in the person represented, the same type of worship due the person can be rendered to the image as representing the person.” Not a Bible teaching.

What does God’s Word say about the making of images used as objects of worship?

Ex. 20:4, 5, JB: “You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them [“bow down before them or worship them,” NAB]. For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God.” (Italics added.) (Notice that the prohibition was against making images and bowing down before them.)

Lev. 26:1, JB: “You must make no idols; you must set up neither carved image nor standing-stone [“sacred pillar,” NW], set up no sculptured stone in your land, to prostrate yourselves in front of it; for it is I, Yahweh, who am your God.” (No image before which people might bow in worship was ever to be set up.)

2 Cor. 6:16, JB: “The temple of God has no common ground with idols, and that is what we are—the temple of the living God.”

1 John 5:21, NAB: “My little children, be on your guard against idols [“idols,” Dy, CC; “false gods,” JB].”

May images be used simply as aids in worship of the true God?

John 4:23, 24, JB: “True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” (Those who rely on images as aids to devotion are not worshiping God “in spirit” but they depend on what they can see with their physical eyes.)

2 Cor. 5:7, NAB: “We walk by faith, not by sight.”

Should we venerate “saints” as intercessors with God, perhaps using images of them as aids in our worship?

Acts 10:25, 26, JB: “As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. ‘Stand up,’ he said ‘I am only a man after all!’” (Since Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present, would he encourage us to kneel before an image of him? See also Revelation 19:10.)

John 14:6, 14, JB: “Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.’” (Jesus here clearly states that our approach to the Father can be only through him and that our requests are to be made in Jesus’ name.)

1 Tim. 2:5, JB: “There is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.” (There is no allowance here for others to serve in the role of mediator for the members of Christ’s congregation.)

Do worshipers have in mind primarily the person represented by an image, or are some images viewed as being superior to others?

The attitude of worshipers is an important factor to consider. Why? Because a key difference between an “image” and an “idol” is the use to which an image is put.

In the mind of the worshiper, does one image of a person have greater value or importance than another image of the same person? If so, it is the image, not the person, that the worshiper has primarily in mind. Why do people make long pilgrimages to worship at certain shrines? Is it not the image itself that is viewed as having “miraculous” powers? For example, in the book Les Trois Notre-Dame de la Cathédrale de Chartres, by the canon Yves Delaporte, we are told regarding images of Mary in the cathedral in Chartres, France: “These images, sculptured, painted or appearing on the stained glass windows, are not equally famous. . . . Only three are the object of a real worship: Our Lady of the Crypt, Our Lady of the Pillar, and Our Lady of the ‘Belle Verriere.’” But if worshipers had primarily in mind the person, not the image, one image would be considered to be just as good as another, would it not?

How does God view images that are objects of worship?

Jer. 10:14, 15, JB: “Every goldsmith blushes for the idol he has made, since his images are nothing but delusion, with no breath in them. They are a Nothing, a laughable production.”

2 Corinthians 11:14

14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light.

Acts 17:29, JB: “Since we are the children of God, we have no excuse for thinking that the deity looks like anything in gold, silver or stone that has been carved and designed by a man.”

Isa. 42:8, JB: “My name is Yahweh, I will not yield my glory to another, nor my honour to idols [“graven things,” Dy].”

Isa. 44:13-19, JB: “The wood carver takes his measurements, outlines the image with chalk, carves it with chisels, following the outline with dividers. He shapes it to human proportions, and gives it a human face, for it to live in a temple. He cut down a cedar, or else took a cypress or an oak which he selected from the trees in the forest, or maybe he planted a cedar and the rain made it grow. For the common man it is so much fuel; he uses it to warm himself, he also burns it to bake his bread. But this fellow makes a god of it and worships it; he makes an idol of it and bows down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire, on the live embers he roasts meat, eats it and is replete. He warms himself too. ‘Ah!’ says he ‘I am warm; I have a fire here!’ With the rest he makes his god, his idol; he bows down before it and worships it and prays to it. ‘Save me,’ he says ‘because you are my god.’ They know nothing, understand nothing. Their eyes are shut to all seeing, their heart to all reason. They never think, they lack the knowledge and wit to say, ‘I burned half of it on the fire, I baked bread on the live embers, I roasted meat and ate it, and am I to make some abomination of what remains? Am I to bow down before a block of wood?’”

Ezek. 14:6, JB: “The Lord Yahweh says this: Come back, renounce your idols [“dungy idols,” NW] and give up all your filthy practices.”

Ezek. 7:20, JB: “They used to pride themselves on the beauty of their jewellery, out of which they made their loathsome images and idols. That is why I mean to make it an object of horror [“uncleanness,” Dy; “refuse,” NAB] to them.”

How should we feel about any images that we may formerly have venerated?

Deut. 7:25, 26, JB: “You must set fire to all the carved images of their gods, not coveting the gold and silver that covers them; take it and you will be caught in a snare: it is detestable to Yahweh your God. You must not bring any detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will come under the ban too. You must regard them as unclean and loathsome [“thoroughly loathe it and absolutely detest it,” NW].”

1 John 5:21, Dy: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols [“false gods,” JB].”

Ezek. 37:23, JB: “They will no longer defile themselves with their idols . . . They shall be my people and I will be their God.”

What effect could use of images in worship have on our own future?

Deut. 4:25, 26, JB: “If you act perversely, making a carved image in one shape or another [“some idol,” Kx; “any similitude,” Dy], doing what displeases Yahweh and angers him, on that day I will call heaven and earth to witness against you; . . . you shall be utterly destroyed.” (God’s viewpoint has not changed. See Malachi 3:5, 6.)

1 Cor. 10:14, 20, JB: “This is the reason, my dear brothers, why you must keep clear of idolatry. . . . The sacrifices that they offer they sacrifice to demons who are not God. I have no desire to see you in communion with demons.”

Rev. 21:8, JB: “The legacy for cowards, for those who break their word, or worship obscenities, for murderers and fornicators, and for fortune-tellers, idolaters or any other sort of liars, is the second death [ftn., “eternal death”] in the burning lake of sulphur.”

Ps. 115:4-8, JB (113:4-8, second set of numbers, Dy): “Their idols, in silver and gold, products of human skill, have mouths, but never speak, eyes, but never see, ears, but never hear, noses, but never smell, hands, but never touch, feet, but never walk, and not a sound from their throats. Their makers will end up like them, and so will anyone who relies on them.”

Malachi 3:6, NW: “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.* [Or “I have not changed.”] And you are sons of Jacob; you have not yet come to your finish.”

a reply to: whereislogic

You know I reasoned for about two years with a Catholic who worked near my home. One day he asked me, why do people keep worshiping idols? I asked him why do you think? He was a Catholic, but had reasoned things out over the course of our conversation. He thought and then said, they lack faith. They need to see something, because they don't have faith to believe in a God they can't see.

I asked him, and you? He said, I know God exists. I always knew. I don't need an idol to believe or have faith in him. The people who have idols and worship them are without faith. I know that now. And I know it because you helped me to understand it.

a reply to: aniceday
Sometimes it gets quite tricky in recognizing an idol though.

An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: “As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word ‘Christ’ [in the Greek language] and had nothing to do with ‘the Cross,’” that is, as an instrument of execution. In fact, this style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun.

Why, then, was the cross so easily accepted by “Christians”? Vine’s Dictionary continues: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

Was it love for Christ that caused the cross, at this late time, to become such an object of veneration? The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics says: “With the 4th cent[ury] magical belief began to take a firmer hold within the Church.” As with a magic charm, simply making the sign of the cross was thought to be “the surest defence against demons, and the remedy for all diseases.” Superstitious use of the cross continues to this day.

They also like 'm on top of Baptist Churches:

More historical details regarding the Cross