It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
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.
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?
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen
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?
I don't know what you are trying to pull here.
But how about C) Make images of stuff, but don't make an image of God, who no man has seen?
Thats closer to whats there in the bible.
Where do you see your "C" option in those words?Stop trying to invent your own commandments to suit your argument.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen
Where do you see your "C" option in those words?Stop trying to invent your own commandments to suit your argument.
Im not making up commandments.
"C" is a valid option considering the Israelites, under Gods command, went ahead and made images of winged beings on the ark of the covenant... but they didn't go around making images of God, even if they didn't worship it.
Also, you are making your own stipulations regarding the 2nd commandment, when you imply its ok to make images of God, as long as you don't worship it. Thats exactly what the Romans thought when they made those images.
Scorpie, I'd like to backtrack. Adj has produced the text of the Second Commandment. It says what he says it does, and it does not say what you say it does.
Roman Chrisitans were under no obligation to follow Hebrew practices as recorded in the Old Testament.
esus is both God and a man.
That the Israelites chose not to make said images, for whatever reason, doesn't suddenly rewrite the Second Commandment to say that it is prohibited by that text.
No, I am not -- I gave you the exact wording, which leaves you with two options, "No images of anything, ever" or "Images are fine, just no worshiping them". There is no stated third option,
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen
That the Israelites chose not to make said images, for whatever reason, doesn't suddenly rewrite the Second Commandment to say that it is prohibited by that text.
Then it only means that the Israelites took their religion seriously.
No, I am not -- I gave you the exact wording, which leaves you with two options, "No images of anything, ever" or "Images are fine, just no worshiping them". There is no stated third option,
And I gave you the exact record of the bible... that though the 2nd commandment prohibits making images, the Israelites were still instructed to make image of cherubs to decorate the ark of the covenant. Quite a contradiction, no?
"The Israelites took their religion seriously"? Have you never read the Old Testament? There's about a million instances of the Israelites NOT taking their religion seriously and the ramifications of it.
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by adjensen
"The Israelites took their religion seriously"? Have you never read the Old Testament? There's about a million instances of the Israelites NOT taking their religion seriously and the ramifications of it.
Muslim don't believe the bible, thats why he can make erroneous statements and believe them. Muslim don't even believe Solomon fell into idolatry and began sacrificing babies to Moloch either even though jews will confirm he did do this.
verse 4 clearly prohibits them from making an image of anything in "heaven above".
The Roman Christians decided they were under no obligation to follow hebrew practises
This is debatable.
The bible texts on Jesus birth shows Mary was blessed with an ordinary human child
The idea of a man being God or God being man is not even biblical to begin with.
In fact, the nature of Jesus was one of the subjects being debated even before the council of Nicea, where some 300 unnamed Bishops voted to decide that was Jesus was divine
"The Israelites took their religion seriously"? Have you never read the Old Testament?
No, logically that makes it stand to reason that the correct option of the two that I offered you was "B", which is what most people agree is the case (Taliban excluded, of course, lol).
Muslim don't believe the bible, thats why he can make erroneous statements and believe them.
Yes, that's how conscience works. People make decisions about how to behave.
Yes, it is. But we're discussing the beliefs of Nicene Christians, so Jesus is both God and man, according to the beliefs of the people whose actions you'd like us to examine.
I don't know what Bible you're reading, Scorpie. Mine have a New Tesatment, whose authors all seem very impressed with Mary's child.
If you mean it isn't a Jewish or Hebrew idea, then I agree. But we're discussing the Christian Church, and it surely is a Christian idea, adopted when Romans were still using Christian captives as cat food.
Oh, I didn't know that he was a Muslim
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen
Oh, I didn't know that he was a Muslim
I bet you also didn't know that only a few years ago, I was also Christian.
I used to believe many of the very same things that I'm debating against today.... because I naively believed that Christian commentators and writers were always in line with whats in the bible.
With that, I'll assume that our discussion here is done. There is nothing in Christian (or Judaic, for that matter) literature that says pictures of God or Angels is wrong,
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
You've only assumed that what the Romans did with Christianity was right. Hardly surprising since you are a Catholic yourself.