Christianity in the hands of the ancient Romans.

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

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.


You might like this piece I am working on.
Let me know what you think if you like. I know you have seen some of the vid but I wanted you to see the whole piece.

Christianity would die without Islam.

Belief is a psychological and imposed condition.

I have been puzzled for some time now as to why the West embraces a pathological and genocidal God who shows almost all works and deeds of hate instead of love.

If I understand why the West chose the Christian God of war correctly, that choice was made and is sustained by the pressures of war brought against it by Islam. The Islamic dogma of kill the infidels show other religions that that God is just as pathological and intolerant as the Christian God with his, believe in me or end in hell policy. The West fought fire with fire.

Rome, now the West, would have had to have a different God than what their Eastern counterparts had. Rome was created as a defensive response to invasions from the Khans and tribes of the Fertile Crescent, Islam. As the Asian tribes relented in their expansion, the main enemy of the West became and is now Islam.

Constantine chose Christianity. First, as a ploy to win in battle and maintained it later, even as he was not a Christian at heart, for his own self-aggrandizement as his plan, according to archeology, was to usurp Jesus as the new King/God.

www.youtube.com...

From there, Rome pushed northward and promoted the Christian God of war on his ability to win battles. The West of today was born.

www.youtube.com...

Unfortunately, morality was never the draw for this Christian God. Only his barbarism that was used against all other Gods and most notably Islam’s.

The fear of Islam then is what is still the driving force that explains the West embracing the pathological and genocidal God of Christianity. It was all just the one-upmanship of killing power.

Vatican II tried for rapprochement with Islam and today, progressive Christianity is trying to offer an olive branch to Islam.

Are the right wings of Christianity and Islam ready to bury the hatchet of war and competition and have their Gods kiss and make up or will the demographics of Muslim peoples force the remainder of this century to be one of conflict?
Will both religions have what it takes to return to the older thinking that there is only one nameless God for all, or will we continue to fight for what is basically a name for God that all books of wisdom say we should not name?

www.patheos.com...

Should both Christianity and Islam revert and follow their religious root, Judaism, and recognize that their man created versions of their Gods are evil and reject them as unfit to rule any peaceful loving nation?

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL
edit on 14-10-2012 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
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.

From what we know, the Israelites during the biblical times did make images of winged angels,(contradicts the second commandment, I know) but they didn't go around making images of God, even if they didn't worship it. Unless you can demonstrate when and where the Israelites made images of God, your argument is rather weak.

The Romans however, were already into making images of their gods.
Many times, their gods were shown as an old, white haired, bearded and well built..


Jupiter


Saturn


Neptune


Does that look familiar?

So when they got their hands on Christianity, they naturally interpreted the God of the bible in pretty much the same way as some of their older gods. Now you know where the stereotype of God being an old white haired man comes from. Thanks a lot Romans.

As for your argument that its ok to make images of God as long as you don't worship it, you seem to be taking liberties with interpreting the biblical law and reading what YOU want into it... just like the Romans did when they took Christianity, a semitic religion.... and modified it to suit what felt right to them.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

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.


No, it isn't -- I posted the Second Commandment right there. Where do you see your "C" option in those words? Stop trying to invent your own commandments to suit your argument.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
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.

If I'm wrong show me one instance in the bible where someone made an image of the biblical God. and I'll admit I'm wrong.
If you cannot do so, then admit that the Romans were in error when they made the image of God.

I also mentioned a bunch of other things in my previous post....
about the Romans modelling the biblical God after their old gods. The most obvious example as to how Romans corrupted Christianity. Of course your being Catholic prevents you from addressing those points. Not surprising at all.

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.


edit on 15-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
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.

Christianity is a religion of individual conscience. Roman Chrisitans were under no obligation to follow Hebrew practices as recorded in the Old Testament. Indeed, the determination of what part of the commandments which were integral to the Sinai Covenant still applied to the New Covenant was - and still is - a matter in which individual Christian consciences may differ.

As you know, there was an "iconoclast" movement within the ancient state-established Eastern Chrisitan church. It is simply not the case that an image-free religion arrived in Rome, and the Romans larded it up with images, and here we are. Even today, there is a significant minority of Western Christians who are conscientiously hostile to images in places of worship. These Chrisitians are just as much inheritors of the Roman church as the Roman Catholic Church is.

What an Islamic analysis of this issue typically overlooks is the peculiar problem of Christianity. Jesus is both God and a man. To depict Jesus is to depict God. Literally, period, the end. The Hebrews did not have this problem, and Islam would not have the problem when it came along. It is peculiar to Christianity, and peculiar to the New Covenant. What the Hebrews did or didn't do can provide no guidance. How you would depict him "whom no man has seen" may well be impossible. How you would depict a man is something learned by schoolchildren.

It is not the Romans, then, who came up with the idea that the Chrisitan God could be depicted as a man. It was the orthodoxy of the Church as they encountered it. Obviously, this aspect of the faith sat well with their own ideas about the character of divinity. That intersection of concepts helps to account for why the Romans eventually adopted the religion.

A second fundamental dificulty in your analysis is to call Chrisitanity a Semitic religion. The Jerusalem Church probably was a sect of Second Temple Judaism, and so the description fits. However, the Chrisitan religion that survived the sack of the Second Temple was Hellenistic. Paul had invited the Peoples, the Gentiles, to participate in the new reliigon as Gentiles.

The religion that took hold in Rome, then, was Gentile, and in particular Hellenistic, since that was the culture area that Paul evangelized. The "Pauline" mission was in fact part of his Pharisaic heritage, that in the end of days, righteous Gentiles would participate in the Jewish world to come, alongside Jews, not as Jews. The end of days, Paul thought, was under way.

If you'd like to develop some rap about the corruption of a church by the state, then I propose that you would do much better to look at the Eastern Church, where the "Roman" Empire survived more than 1000 years after the Christian establishment. That would be until the Turkish Lunades forcibly ended the Chrisitan state. The Western Roman empire didn't surive the establishment even by a century, and what did survive as the vestigial "Western Empire" was probably more propped up by the church than vice versa.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

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.


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.

I do not eat lobster, not because I cannot, but because I choose not to. That doesn't mean that it's binding on my daughter to not eat lobster, or someone who believes in the same things that I do, or even binding on myself. It simply means that I choose not to.


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.


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, "Images of anything other than God are fine, just no worshiping them" -- those words are inserted by you to further your argument, they are not original to the commandment.

@EightBits: Thank you, once again, for articulating my thoughts far better than I can
edit on 15-10-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



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.


Lets go over the text of the 2nd commandment. From Exodus 20.


4 “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.
5 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,
6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.


verse 4 clearly prohibits them from making an image of anything in "heaven above".

But we know that God later instructed the Israelites to incorporate images of winged cherubs on to the ark of the covenant, thereby violating the 2nd commandment. And then instructed Moses to make the brass serpent.

Yes, they didn't "worship" these images, but the point remains that the Israelites NEVER made an image of the biblical God... even as a decoration.



Roman Chrisitans were under no obligation to follow Hebrew practices as recorded in the Old Testament.

The Roman Christians decided they were under no obligation to follow hebrew practises regarding images, especially depicting an image of God. Then later, they went on to become an authority on Christianity, deciding whats doctrine and whats not.


esus is both God and a man.


This is debatable.
The bible texts on Jesus birth shows Mary was blessed with an ordinary human child.... not a god or "both man and god". At best, Jesus had a title "son of God", but it is not exclusive to Jesus as even Adam, David and a few others held that title. The idea of a man being God or God being man is not even biblical to begin with.

Anyway, the idea of someone being "both God and man" itself resembles Roman religion more than the semitic religion, which Jesus followed. This perfectly explains where the idea of Jesus being a man-god comes from. 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.... of course, all after Christianity was Romanized with concepts such as being "fully God and fully man".



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
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....and the polytheistic idolatrous Romans didn't.
To them, it was another religion that they absorbed and integrated with their religious beliefs. They were not obligated to adhere to it.




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?

Next, show me where the Israelites ever made an image of God.

edit on 15-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

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, it doesn't. It means that you're just making things up to try and make your argument. You've invented a "Second Commandment, version 2.0" and that's not how the world works.

"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.




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?


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).



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

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.


Oh, I didn't know that he was a Muslim, I figured that he was just ignorant of the Old Testament and kept misrepresenting it to make his invalid point about the Second Commandment.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

verse 4 clearly prohibits them from making an image of anything in "heaven above".


The division between verses was added in the early modern era. It's all one piece, you can parse it as forbidding all images of anything, or you can parse it as forbidding images which you worship. Take your pick, but those are the choices. I think the second option makes more sense in light of the rest of the Hebrew Bible and the archaeology.


The Roman Christians decided they were under no obligation to follow hebrew practises


Yes, that's how conscience works. People make decisions about how to behave.


This is debatable.


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.


The bible texts on Jesus birth shows Mary was blessed with an ordinary human child


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.


The idea of a man being God or God being man is not even biblical to begin with.


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.

BTW, there is no Roman hero-man, whether a son of a god or otherwise, through whom the Universe was created. The Christian conception of Jesus isn't Roman to begin with, either.


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


I believe another poster has already corrected your misimpression about what was discussed at Nicaea. The issue of whether Jesus was divine had been settled long before that. That still left plenty of christology and other interesting things to discuss, at Nicaea and later councils as well.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


The "Son of God" is not a unique idea to christianity, it's roots lie in mosaic judaism and you can find it in Daniel 3 and Proverbs 30 amoung some other places. God did say he himself would visit Israel for punishment Exodus 32:34, so God showing up in person is also not unique to christianity as he also appeared in the flesh in Exodus 33:19-23.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




"The Israelites took their religion seriously"? Have you never read the Old Testament?


Put it into the context of what we were discussing here
... and it all suddenly makes sense.

*cue flashback music*

We were talking about Israelites and making images
You said : That the Israelites chose not to make said images, for whatever reason
And in response, I said...
"Then it only means that the Israelites took their religion seriously....and the polytheistic idolatrous Romans didn't."



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).


The instructions to make the winged cherubs and the brass snake came from God Himself. So the Israelites didn't make an image for themselves.

So lets get back to how the Romans decided to make an image of God. Did God or any prophet instruct them to do it? No. The Romans had a rich culture when it came to the arts.... and decided they could simply interpret the God of the bible as an old, bearded, muscular man... no different from their old gods such as Jupiter or Saturn.

I think I can understand why you have been silent about this.

edit on 15-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



Muslim don't believe the bible, thats why he can make erroneous statements and believe them.


I'll repeat what I wrote to him...

We were talking about Israelites and making images
You said : That the Israelites chose not to make said images, for whatever reason
And in response, I said...
"Then it only means that the Israelites took their religion seriously....and the polytheistic idolatrous Romans didn't."


Know that I keep track of who said what, when and in what context. Ive found that it really helps in a discussion like this.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


"The Roman Christians decided they were under no obligation to follow hebrew practises"


Yes, that's how conscience works. People make decisions about how to behave.


If they decided to violate an important commandment, while claiming to be christians, then there is a problem.
When did Christianity become an "anything goes" kind of religion?



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.

Nicene Christianity decided that Jesus is both God and man. It was decided via the votes of 300 unknown Bishops under the command of a pagan emperor.
Had they decided that Jesus is a man and NOT God, our christian friends would have been singing a different tune today.


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.

Does your bible narrate the angel telling Mary she would be giving birth to a child who is fully man and fully God?
Being impressed with Marys child does not automatically make Jesus both God and man.



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.

Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion.
Which is why Christians are dependant on OT scriptures, or they wouldn't have all these "prophecies" pointing to Christ.
As for it being a "Christian idea", there are several of them.
Some believe God and Jesus are seperate entities being subordinate to God.
Some believe Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

Which group of "Christians" are correct on this matter? You tell me.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

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.


Just recognize that the best sources of information about a rival religion are rarely its rivals. For example, I tend not to surf to Christian web sites to learn about Hinduism. I give myself enough credit to be able to comprehend what the Hindus have to say about themselves.

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, if it is not worshipped, and it is of no matter if there are Muslim, Norse or Buddhist literature that says anything to the contrary.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



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,


You've only assumed that what the Romans did with Christianity was right. Hardly surprising since you are a Catholic yourself.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

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.


No, the assumption is based on your inability to demonstrate your point. In a discussion such as this, you are making a positive affirmation, so it is on you to show that your assertion is correct, and you have failed to do so. Apart from a rewrite of the Second Commandment, there is no evidence that there was anything other than a cultural aversion (if that) of the Israelites to making images of God, and a cultural aversion is of no consequence.

Does the Second Commandment prohibit your option "C"? No, it does not, even a simplistic reading of that commandment would agree with that. So, in the absence of any other evidence of prohibition, your assertion is shown to be false.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join