Christianity in the hands of the ancient Romans.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




Unless you want to go "Taliban crazy" and start blowing up statues and stuff, there isn't a prohibition on artwork representing anything, but rather on the worship of such as a god, which was a common practice in the time of Moses.


Do you mean to tell me that 2nd commandment had a loophole which somehow allowed the Romans depiction of God in the Sistine Chapel?



In veneration, you don't worship the statue, but it is used as a focus. It's kind of confusing, and I honestly just don't "get it", but it isn't viewed as something akin to idolatry.


I'm not talking about veneration here....but rather the commandment to not make a likeness of anything that "is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath or in the waters."

Romanized Christianity appears to be ok with depicting God and the angels. A bunch of European converts have taken the liberty to violate a direct commandment to NOT make these images.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen
 




Unless you want to go "Taliban crazy" and start blowing up statues and stuff, there isn't a prohibition on artwork representing anything, but rather on the worship of such as a god, which was a common practice in the time of Moses.


Do you mean to tell me that 2nd commandment had a loophole which somehow allowed the Romans depiction of God in the Sistine Chapel?


It isn't a loophole -- it says quite clearly that what's prohibited is idol worship. By your read, it doesn't matter if the painting was of God, or of a fish or tree -- all imagery is banned. But that's not what it says, and it's certainly not the intent. Heck, God told Moses to make a bronze serpent to cure the Israelites of snakebites -- an image, but no one treated it like it was God.

Show me the people who are up the Sistine Chapel, praying over that painting because they think it IS God, and maybe you've a point. But you're never going to find people like that, because they don't exist.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



1. The Romans may have converted to Christianity in large numbers, but they were still following a rather Romanized version of Christianity. This is made obvious by the fact that Romanized Christianity had no regard for the 2nd commandment. They just wen't ahead and made images depicting God and the angels. In other words, they practiced their own form of Christianity... which had strayed far from the original.


Not saying that Rome didn't do this, the church followed Israel's footsteps right down to the apostacies. They were trying to win more people to Christ from the pagans that they compromised, taking on things like pagan holidays. There was a real church in Rome that followed the tenets of christianity but when it came time to convert pagan priests and their followers all those priests did was remove their pagan medallions and they dressed up their pagan rituals in christian clothing, and introduced pagan things like praying the dead into heaven and using holy water versus the jewish olive oil to anoint. But like Israel even within the institution that came later, God would always have loyal followers in their ranks throughout the ages, the 7 archetypes of churches have always been present within the "church".



Can you imagine Chinese muslim converts making religious laws for muslims in middle east, the place where Islam originated? Thats exactly what happened with the Romans and the council of Nicea.
The Roman converts went on to become THE authority on a religion that originated with the Semitic people.
Don't you find that strange?


No Rome didn't make laws for all christians everywhere. Antioch was around for quite a while and even after Antioch disappeared orthodox christianity remained and it is that root where protestant christianity was born from. Rome installed all sorts of things like calling Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Mother of God" and even "co-redemptrix" and the belief that Mary herself was immaculately concieved and that the only reason Jesus was sinless was because Mary was which contradicts Luke 1:46-55 in that Mary was singing to God her Savior, a sinless woman wouldn't need a Savior. The old Latin Vulgate tried to replace Christ in Genesis 3 being the seed with a female seed that would crush Satan's head and have her heel bruised. Neither did early christianity need to go before priests for forgiveness because we can go straight to Jesus who is our intercessor. The jews were given the message first, it didn't go to the gentiles until there were no longer anymore jewish converts to be won. The prime church of authority was Jerusalem, seconded by Antioch.


edit on 8-10-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


The See of Antioch and the See of Jerusalem never ceased existing. The Patriarch of Antioch (Ignatius IV) presides over the See my parish is in. He lives on Straight Street in Damascus, Syria (the seat was moved from Turkey after the Ottoman invasion).

I may touch on the other issues brought up in this thread later. It seems I have areas of disagreement with everyone (no offense).



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




It isn't a loophole -- it says quite clearly that what's prohibited is idol worship. By your read, it doesn't matter if the painting was of God, or of a fish or tree -- all imagery is banned.


I'm sure the Romans used the same logic to go ahead and paint images representing God and the angels.
Which is basically what I'm trying to say.... that they fused their culture of arts with a religion that specifically forbid the making of images.

How many other groups of Christians are decorate their churches with images representing God and the angels, even if they are not worshipping it?



Show me the people who are up the Sistine Chapel, praying over that painting because they think it IS God, and maybe you've a point. But you're never going to find people like that, because they don't exist.

Show me something from the bible which allowed the Israelites to make images of God, so long as they don't worship it.

Are there any archaelogical finds that show images of the biblical God? Theres a good reason why they don't exist.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


The ark of the covenant had graven images on it. Because of the incarnation, Christ can be depicted, being both fully God and fully man. Icons aren't worshiped, but we do venerate what they represent. They are windows into heaven. We also know that there were synagogues that were decorated with frescoes, etc. so there is precedent in Judaism, and most certainly in the early church for iconography.

Idolatry is the worship of images, the worship of gods other than the God of the bible by images, and the worship of animals, people, and objects, none of which is practiced in the Christian Church. We practice douleia but not latreia when it comes to the veneration of icons. I would say that it is an effort of conscious intent. One should always be aware of what they are doing and guard their thoughts accordingly.

Our clergy are icons of Christ to us, just as we are icons of Christ to everyone we meet.

Icons are a visual showing of a spiritual reality. They are not meant to portray a physical reality. They are actually very symbolic on a number of levels. Iconographers are said to 'write' icons, not paint them. And we 'read' them. They are biblical teaching in visual form.

An article you may be interested in:
www.antiochian.org...

ETA: Found something I put together about icons a while back. You may find it interesting.

The earliest iconographers in Byzantium weren’t considered artists they were craftsmen, and people were presented in Byzantine court dress. There are strict rules to iconography. The way Christ is presented has pretty much become a set thing (while schools and styles may change slightly, certain aspects never do). Long hair and beards on men tend to represent renunciation of the things of this world. God the Father is never shown, and the Holy Spirit is only represented by a dove, rays of power, or tongues of flame. As such, there are iconographic abominations, which is just about anything that Western Christianity has come up with, sad as that is to say.

Medieval painters in the West and later on during the Renaissance were focused on showing beauty and man and they even used human models to sit for their Virgin and Child paintings. While beautiful, they certainly weren't icons in any true sense because they got caught up in so much else and they lost something vital along the way. (Interestingly enough, these artists physically represented their models so well that they can now determine what health problems the models had, as per a BBC article from a year or so ago.)

There is a lot that can be said about icons. There is much more that simply can’t be easily covered on a message board. They are a fascinating subject and easily misunderstood by people who don’t use them for their intended purpose. Books upon books have been written about them. I suggest that if you are interested in the subject that you go and find some books (I especially recommend Quinot and Martin). Many art collectors usually miss the point entirely. People who defile them, make portraits of other people like Ghandi or Martin Luther King in an iconographic style, people who print them on t-shirts: it is seen pretty much as very sad and outrageous. Seeing an icon in a museum, even if that museum used to be a church, is distorting the context.

Linette Martin in her book Sacred Doorways: A Beginner’s Guide to Icons (page 212) states, “To the question, “Where does an icon belong?” the obvious answer is, “In a church, to be an integral part of the Divine Liturgy, or in a Christian home as a devotional focus.”

Regarding God the Son in icons, Martin says (page 149),

"In the fifth century the bearded face became standard and has continued to be the principal way he is shown. There is a cross in his halo so you can immediately distinguish Christ form the apostles. His hand is in a position of blessing, commanding, or teaching. In some icons of the Virgin and Child, he is a minature adult (though beardless) to show he had a knowledge and an identity beyond that of an ordinary purely human baby. This is precisely because he is the Incarnate Word and Wisdom of God. The Christ Child in icons usually holds a scroll to show he is God's Wisdom. Icon craftsmen were not concerned with making a pretty picture of any mother and baby and then merely adding haloes. To paint him as an ordinary baby would be to say, visually, that he was an ordinary baby. Instead, the Byzantine craftsman was making a picture of the Incarnation."


Symbolism is key. There is a lot of it to be found. From seemingly random trees, to personification, to color, to the way figures hold their hands, to the scale of figures, to profiles, animals, arrested movement, body language, buildings, clothing worn, drapery, rocks, furniture, haloes, handheld objects, inscriptions, landscape, simultaneous narration, etc. it all means something. There is an entire theology behind icons.

The earliest icons we know of are almost all at St. Catherine’s Monastery in Mt. Sinai, Egypt (and many of them were exhibited at the Getty Center a year or so back- accompanied by a few of the Monks). Go to their website and watch the video about the monastery and the icons. It is very awesome and well done. www.getty.edu...

From Linette Martin’s book, Sacred Doorways: A Beginner’s Guide to Icons (page 150, 151) published by Paraclete Press, copyright 2002:


“Christ Pantocrator (pan-to-crah-tor) means Christ, the ruler of all.

The domed roof of a Byzantine church represents the vault of heaven, and originally, mosaicists may have decorated it with the Ascension. By the tenth century, the figure in church domes was half-length, and the picture for a dome had changed from narrative to confrontational. It was discovered that a half-length figure fitted more easily into a circle than one of full length, and it allowed the face to be on a larger scale… He holds a closed book, which may be seen as the Gospels or as the Book of Judgment in Revelation 20: 11,12…”

The fingers of his right hand are bent in the position of a priest’s hand of blessing and are pointing toward himself. The index finger of his other hand points powerfully across the picture, balancing the sideways glance of his eyes to his left. When we look carefully at the face of this Pantocrator, we see a difference between one side and the other. His right side, the side of blessing, is calm; his left side, the side of judgment, is fierce with an angry eyebrow. After nearly nine hundred years this awe-inspiring image still has the power to convert. Confronted with it for the first time some people react with shock: This is not a tame Jesus. The only thing that lets us off the hook is that those eyes do not look directly at us. The image is a reminder that the Last Judgment should be feared because it will be absolutely just, albeit tempered by mercy and total understanding.”

The Pantocrator is not intended to represent Christ as the Jesus of Galilee, but as the awe-inspiring God-Man, the King of the Universe and terrible Judge at the end of time.”

edit on 8-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


LeSigh replied in a far better form that I would have been able to. I defer to that post for my response



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
i don't think you can compare modern christiainity by catholicism. the traditions that the roman catholics set up really doesn't match the way that the early christians practiced the religion.

i will say that some people would argue that God used Constantine to spread his word. now, that can not be proven, but it can't be disproven either. no matter which it is, it can not be denied that the religion spread like wildfire.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n


3c) Constantine later became more and more Christian and turned against paganism and tore down pagan temples towards the end of his reign. Though he played a great role in Christianizing the Roman empire, his own "Christianness" was questionable. For starters, this guy killed his own wife and son!. You decide.

3d) Constantine also led the council of Nicea, with the intent to define and canonize important doctrines (such as the trinity, deity of Jesus etc.) that religious leaders were quarelling over... BY VOTE! Constantine himself did not vote...as he lacked understanding of the very theological issues the council intended to resolve.


]


Nice post. I have no argument except for Constantine's understanding and intent.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.



Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

home.pacific.net.au...


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Regards
D



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
]


I just wanted to add these links to show Constantines thinking and how the West eventually embrace the Christian God of was.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
(Re: 3d) The Trinity was accepted by the Church as that was verifying what the scriptures said. The purpose of Ecumenical Councils was to make sure that the Church was continuing in unity of faith and Tradition. It was important to conclusively explain the nature of Christ and the Godhead because it matters theologically.

Regarding the Trinity- While the word Trinity isn’t used, it is implied heavily. The Trinity is found and referenced all through the scirptures. It seems quite obvious to me. Just a few examples:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in_ the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”–Matthew 28:19

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”- John 1:1

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."- John 1:14

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."- John 1:18

“…of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”- Romans 9:5

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”- Colossians 2:8-10

“But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”- Hebrews 1:8

“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”- I John 5:20

“But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’”- Acts 5:3-4

“Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”- I Corinthians 3:16

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”- John 6:27

“To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”- Romans 1:7

“…elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace be multiplied.”- I Peter 1:2

“Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.”- Psalm 50/51:10-11

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’”- Genesis 1:26

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”- Genesis 1:1-2

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— Genesis 3:22

“…Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”- Genesis 11:7

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:
‘Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?’
Then I said, ‘Here am I! Send me.’”- Isaiah 6:8

Some links that explain it better than I ever could:
www.gotquestions.org...
theorthodoxchurch.info...

edit on 9-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
i don't think you can compare modern christiainity by catholicism. the traditions that the roman catholics set up really doesn't match the way that the early christians practiced the religion.


Are you saying that you can compare modern Christianity (heterodoxy) to the way the early Christians practiced the religion? When people speak against Catholicism, they do sometimes point to specific doctrines, but what they usually are referring to (when all is said and done) is liturgy and a rejection of Apostolic succession. The Church has always had liturgy. The Jews have/had liturgy. Modern Christianity (overwhelmingly) seems to reject liturgy. The more modern the denomination, the less liturgy they tend to have.

ETA: Here is a great site to go to learn about liturgy (Jewish, early Christian, Orthodox, RCC, and Protestant). It not only talks history- it has primary sources (i.e. examples of liturgical chants actually used).
www.liturgica.com...
edit on 9-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 


i was mainly talking about the way mother mary is held in such high esteem, altar boys, etc. point being, most of that seems to have been added. not saying it's wrong, but it seems to be something the catholic church put in.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I stopped watching about ten minutes in to the first video. My observations (that I also posted on the youtube comments): So, the fact that there weren't crosses on Constantine's arch and because crosses were found carved in a Roman fort near Hadrian's wall are proof that Constantine invented a vision? Really? Logical fallacy much? Perceived correlation does not equal causation.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by LeSigh
 


i was mainly talking about the way mother mary is held in such high esteem, altar boys, etc. point being, most of that seems to have been added. not saying it's wrong, but it seems to be something the catholic church put in.


Ah- I get ya. Anything about the virgin Mary seems to cause issues and make some uncomfortable. It's a hard teaching for people to accept. I think that where a lot of people get lost is the fact that who we say she is ties directly into Christology. We call her Theotokos (God-bearer) as it affirms that Christ is God. It is also affirmed in scripture (Luke 1:42-43). Specifically because this came up in an Ecumenical Council has the Catholic connection in many minds (but that would include the Trinity and the New Testament itself too).


42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


The Theotokos, because of her complete obedience to God, is considered to be an example to us of a human who has drawn near to God in theosis. So, in essence, she is the ideal Christian- and we honor her and call her blessed (as it says in scripture). This is only possible through Christ. We see it as a miracle, that the God of the universe would contain himself in her womb. This is why we also say that her womb is more spacious than the heavens. We also refer to her as the ark of the covenant, amongst other things.
edit on 9-10-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 


interesting. it's nice to hear that perspective seeing as how i'd not heard it before. i'm not by any means saying that is wrong, i hope i make that clear. each will interpret differently which explains all the denominations.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh
(Re]


If Jesus was God, show the scriptures that say that God can die.

If Jesus was God, how could he sacrifice himself to himself?

How can he have accepted his own ransom to himself?
There could not be a loss or gain and therefore no sacrifice to cover sin.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I stopped watching about ten minutes in to the first video. My observations (that I also posted on the youtube comments): So, the fact that there weren't crosses on Constantine's arch and because crosses were found carved in a Roman fort near Hadrian's wall are proof that Constantine invented a vision? Really? Logical fallacy much? Perceived correlation does not equal causation.


You should have kept on going. You missed the message'

Regards
DL



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by LeSigh
(Re]


If Jesus was God, show the scriptures that say that God can die.

If Jesus was God, how could he sacrifice himself to himself?

How can he have accepted his own ransom to himself?
There could not be a loss or gain and therefore no sacrifice to cover sin.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL


Look up recapitulation (i.e. Irenaeus) or Christus Victor. Christ is the new Adam and obedient unto death on a tree- where Adam was disobedient by eating the fruit of the tree. This view clearly shows Christ as the Word/Logos- able to bridge the gap between God and man that was destroyed via Adam. 'God became man so that man can become like God.' Through the person of Christ, all people can know God and have their sins covered. Sin is missing the mark (which is union with God). Christ, being fully God and fully man, died. His human nature died- but God Himself descended into Hades, defeating death. He preached to those there and lifted the righteous dead from their graves. Christ is the way people can fulfill their very purpose of existence- union with God. There is only life in Christ, and only through Him can people know God and attain theosis. Christ redeemed all of creation. God didn't have to do anything- you're right. However- it was for our sake that it was done. God fixed what man destroyed by becoming the Paschal Lamb- and you still have a choice. Everyone will be in the light of Christ one day- the issue is-will you experience that light as Paradise or the Lake of Fire? (Same state- different experience.) It all depends on your disposition towards God and it depends on whether or not you have Christ in you.

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it."- Colossians 2:13-15

"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."- 2 Corinthians 5:18-19

"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."-2 Corinthians 5:21

"...being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."- Romans 3:24-26



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 


I greatly appreciate the effort and time you've put into typing out a long and detailed reply.

But images and icons is just a small portion of the larger issue at hand.... i.e - the Romanization of Christianity.
Christians need to realize that their religion was hijacked just a few centuries after the original apostles died.

Also, refer to the reply I wrote to lonewolf.

edit on 10-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join