Christianity in the hands of the ancient Romans.

reply to post by Greatest I am

Does that mean that your ticket to heaven was purchased with innocent blood?

Evil exists and it is a real thing. It is our enemy.
Jesus was given over to the enemy and then was killed by it.
There is no "ticket" but what we have is a clarity of though of the nature of evil, so we are ralleyed up to join into battle against it.

Now what I described above is an actual tactic used by the Romans in battle. That they would sacrifice one of their members to the enemy so the troops could see what the enemy would do to him, before they joined into battle with them.

reply to post by adjensen

They laid out what the rules were for Gentiles, and there wasn't anything in there about making paintings.

Neither did Jesus go over many of the obvious laws. That didn't mean he allowed for obvious rules of the Jewish religion to be broken. Instead, Jesus focused on deeper, more spiritual things.

Now for a European peoples to adopt a semitic religion and do away with their millenia old paganism and idolatry, overnight.... I'm a little skeptical about that. The Romans, who just generations ago were polythieists and idolaters, went on to become a self proclaimed authority and started deciding theological matters and along the way, modifed the original semitic religion. Basically Christianity evolved through the Romans... starting with Paul, a Roman citizen. That's how far back one can trace the corruption of Christianity.

reply to post by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Greatest I am

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

Nice find.
Watching the first video, which starts with the question about Christians worshipping a version of Jesus formed by a pagan.

Video description : Archaeology in Rome and Istanbul reveal that Constantine strategically combined many deities and sold Christ as an amalgamation of sun gods.

Just like the Romans did with any other religion they adopted, as the OP says. This is going to be interesting.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You just don't seem to want to accept the basic fact that having a painting of God, or Jesus, or a cross, or St. Peter or whatever isn't idolatry, so I guess that there's no turning you from your Taliban ways.

Enjoy the following video of your "brothers" desecrating statuary.

reply to post by adjensen

You just don't seem to want to accept the basic fact that having a painting of God, or Jesus, or a cross, or St. Peter or whatever isn't idolatry, so I guess that there's no turning you from your Taliban ways.

And you are bringing up a distraction with that Taliban video, which I'm not going to bother responding to.
My earlier point about Christianity becoming corrupted in the hands of the Romans still stands.

Either way, you seem to have great faith that the Romans carefully followed every single tenet of Christianity, If it works for you, then fine.

I'll choose to remain suspicious of the Romans and their handling of a semitic religion.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
And you are bringing up a distraction with that Taliban video, which I'm not going to bother responding to.

The point is that you, like the Taliban, are saying that any image of a religious nature is idolatry. If you disagree with them, explain how your view differs from theirs, otherwise, just accept that you have an unpopular viewpoint.

My earlier point about Christianity becoming corrupted in the hands of the Romans still stands.

No, it doesn't, because it never made any sense in the first place -- you find corruption where there is none, because you operate on the basis of invalid definitions (see point regarding Taliban, above.)

reply to post by adjensen

The point is that you, like the Taliban, are saying that any image of a religious nature is idolatry.
If you disagree with them, explain how your view differs from theirs, otherwise, just accept that you have an unpopular viewpoint.

Honestly, I'd be a whole lot more inclined to agree with you if the bible taught that one could make images of God and the angels, as long as its only for decorative purposes. Of course, there is no such stipulation in the bible, but you are making your own rules as you go along... Just like the Romans, who decided that the 2nd commandment is no big deal.

The real issue here is that you seem to naively believe that the Romans discarded their millenia-old polytheism and idolatry and then embraced Christianity overnight.... Your christianity has its roots in the Nicene Christianity, declared state religion of the Roman empire in 380 AD by emperor Theodosius.

reply to post by adjensen


And since you like to keep bringing up the Taliban and their destruction of the Buddha statues....
have a look at what was done by Theodosius 1, after he established Nicene Trinitatian Chrsitianity, which you believe was true christianity, as the official religion of the Roman empire.

The Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce anti-pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

Between 389–391 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees," which establed a practical ban on paganism; visits to the temples were forbidden, remaining pagan holidays abolished, the eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, auspices and witchcrafting punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by pagan senators. In 392 he became Emperor of the whole Empire (the last one to do so). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration, he authorized or participated in the destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the Empire, and participated in actions by Christians against major pagan sites

LOL.
Their idea was "destroy everybody elses holy objects, but lets install our own".

So looks like the founding fathers of your Romanized Christianity were busting up religious images even before the Taliban showed up.

You're really in no position to even point fingers at others for destroying religious icons.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

And since you like to keep bringing up the Taliban and their destruction of the Buddha statues....
have a look at what was done by Theodosius 1

How does that relate to you, and your agreement with the Taliban of what pictures of a religious nature might mean?

I'm no universal apologist for the 2,000 years of the church. It has done good things, it has done bad things, but that's irrelevant for this discussion, which is whether having the image of a cross, or any other religious imagery, is somehow idolatry.

reply to post by adjensen

I'm no universal apologist for the 2,000 years of the church. It has done good things, it has done bad things, but that's irrelevant for this discussion, which is whether having the image of a cross, or any other religious imagery, is somehow idolatry.

The discussion is NOT about idolatry and graven images...

The OP was about how the Romans, a European peoples adopted a semitic religion and later became THE authority on it. I've noticed you don't seem to want to address this. I guess its probably because you believe your brand of Christianity has its roots in the official religion of the former Roman empire.

I've said before here that religious imagery is only a small part of the issue. Its only a starting point... just an example to show that the Romans behind the Roman Church were not really serious about the religion that they adopted.

But its hardly any surprise, considering how these were the same people who later used violence, torture and intimidation to get a point across. How you even think they could have been "Christians" is beyond me.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The discussion is NOT about idolatry and graven images...

Are you claiming that someone hacked your account and posted this?

You're the one who turned the discussion in this direction, not me.

If you'd like to eliminate it from the discussion, either admit that it doesn't matter, or explain how your view and the Taliban's differs.

reply to post by adjensen

You're the one who turned the discussion in this direction, not me.

Actually, I brought it up even little earlier in this post on page 1.

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.

... to illustrate a larger point... that the Romans followed their own Romanized version of Christianity.


I'll say it again, the Romans depicting God and the angels is only ONE example of how they were not serious about the religion they had adopted.

But of course... you, as a ROMAN Catholic... are ok with whatever the Romans did with Christianity, because your own religion (and Christian doctrine in general) can be traced back to Nicene Christianity, the state religion of Rome. You cant possibly call yourself a Catholic AND at the same time, find fault with Roman Christianity.

reply to post by adjensen

If you'd like to eliminate it from the discussion, either admit that it doesn't matter, or explain how your view and the Taliban's differs.

It matters since its an example of how the Romans had their own special brand of Christianity, which allowed them to depict God and the anglels, even if they weren't worshipped

I'll eliminate this from the discussion as soon as you show me where the bible teaches that one could make images of God and the angels, as long as its not worshipped.


I had brought it up earlier
in this post... but you didn't seem too interested in addressing it.

reply to post by adjensen

or explain how your view and the Taliban's differs.

My personal view on depicting God... matches not only that of the Taliban but also that of the Biblical patriarchs.

Now, you explain how the "Christian" Roman Empires views on pagan religious objects differed from the Talibans view on Buddhist statues.

Come to think of it, the Taliban destroyed their own country's heritage....much like how the "Christian" Roman empire started destroyed their own empires religious heritage.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you'd like to eliminate it from the discussion, either admit that it doesn't matter, or explain how your view and the Taliban's differs.

It matters since its an example of how the Romans had their own special brand of Christianity, which allowed them to depict God and the anglels, even if they weren't worshipped

I'll eliminate this from the discussion as soon as you show me where the bible teaches that one could make images of God and the angels, as long as its not worshipped.


I had brought it up earlier
in this post... but you didn't seem too interested in addressing it.

... because you don't seem to understand the notion of "it isn't prohibited, so why does it need to be explicitly allowed?"

The Bible also doesn't teach that one can eat cheese sandwiches, play dominos or drive a car, either, so I suppose all of those things are some sort of Roman conspiracy, as well?

reply to post by adjensen

"it isn't prohibited, so why does it need to be explicitly allowed?"

You seem to be exempting the Romans from the 2nd commandment.

Like I said, I'll eliminate this from the discussion as soon as you show me where the bible teaches that one could make images of God and the angels, as long as its not worshipped.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

"it isn't prohibited, so why does it need to be explicitly allowed?"

You seem to be exempting the Romans from the 2nd commandment.

Like I said, I'll eliminate this from the discussion as soon as you show me where the bible teaches that one could make images of God and the angels, as long as its not worshipped.

Geez, you're thick as a whale omelet, aren't you?

Let's try this again...

You shall not make for yourself an image 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; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6 NIV)

Now, that says one of two things.

a) You cannot make images of anything. No artwork, no statues, no cave paintings, nothing.

-or-

b) You can make images, you just cannot bow down and worship them.

Now, if you agree with the first, then what you are saying about images of God and angels is not relevant, because you are also opposed to pictures of trees, or fish, or soccer balls. If you agree with the second, your question is not relevant, because you said "pictures of God, which are not worshipped."

By the Second Commandment, there is no "middle ground" that you wish to sentence Christians into. It's "A" or it's "B", so what say ye?

Oops.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
[

You do not understand who and what the Son of God is.]

My focus is morals so perhaps we should clear the air first with a couple of questions.

You think Jesus died for you. Does that mean that your ticket to heaven was purchased with innocent blood?
Is that moral?

You also say that Jesus is God's son. Was God a good role model as scriptures would have us believe?
Also.
Regards
DL

I'm not the one who establishes what morality is but if it means i can get to heaven, i'll take whatever bone he throws my way. A good dog is grateful for whatever his master decides to do for him.

You think in humans terms when it comes to being "Son", i know i am asking alot here but try to raise the bar some and think outside your box.

Did God pay child support or was he a deadbeat dad?

:shk: not even going to bother to try.

Not surprising. Dogs do not think that well.
Enjoy your bone.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Does that mean that your ticket to heaven was purchased with innocent blood?

Evil exists and it is a real thing. It is our enemy.
Jesus was given over to the enemy and then was killed by it.
There is no "ticket" but what we have is a clarity of though of the nature of evil, so we are ralleyed up to join into battle against it.

Now what I described above is an actual tactic used by the Romans in battle. That they would sacrifice one of their members to the enemy so the troops could see what the enemy would do to him, before they joined into battle with them.

edit on 13-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

You know the nature of evil! Sweet.

Educate us then and describe it's nature.

Regards
DL