Statues

[Zenas]

Not according to the RCC. According to their Catechism and Vatican II the true church consists in the RCC and the RCC alone. Would you like to defend your beliefs using the Council of Trent?

You're right, DHK. In a 2007 document called "RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH" promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it states in no uncertain terms that the only real church is the OHCAC "governed by the successor to Peter." All the others, it says, are defective. You can read the document here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[DHK]

You're right, DHK. In a 2007 document called "RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH" promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it states in no uncertain terms that the only real church is the OHCAC "governed by the successor to Peter." All the others, it says, are defective. You can read the document here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Yes. A little further on it also states (as if to make no mistake):

Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So, you are going on record to deny that Rome considers devout but ignornat members of other non-Christian religions to be lost and going to hell and thus not part of either the "soul" of the church or the visible body of the church??? Is that correct?

That is a different question all together. What you are refering to is what the church thinks about people who had never been exposed to the gospel. Some of them (as the bible says) are a law unto themselves. Yet even there upon death they will fall under obedience and be apart of the heavenly kingdom. but again a red herring. because Protestants are considered currently appart of the church just unkowingly. two different things.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

#841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongs whom are THE MOSLEMS; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day"

Anyone with a summary knowledge of the Muslim religion knows they repudiate the God of Abraham and deny the Trinity and reduce Jesus Christ to an inferior prophet to their prophet Muhammed. Thus the Great Whore embraces false religion into its bosom and her false gods.

that doesn't say Muslims are saved. It says they acknowledge the creator and since they claim Abraham they are referring to the same God. It doesn't say they are saved. They obviously are wrong about God. Though some who may never have been exposed to the Gospel and have become a law unto themselves may recieve mercy. But Muslims by virtue of muslims does not guarentee salvation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The true body of Christ does not believe what the RCC believes.
The RCC does not believe what the Bible teaches as is evidenced by the Council of Trent.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Council_of_Trent.aspx

That's too much for me to read. However if your talking about the Deuteronical books the bible doesn't mention every book in the bible that is considered canon. If you consider just the books the bible mentions you would have fewer books. However, you still have to prove that the RCC doesn't follow the bible. You on the other hand treat the bible as a smorgishboard choosing what you want to believe. Just because you can't handle John 6 you refuse to believe what Jesus says about the eucharist.

 

[JarJo]

The RCC practices inclusivism. In fact in their Catechism they say that Muslims are going to Heaven. They certainly don't believe that Christ is God. Yet, Jesus said: "I am the way the truth and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me. Islam teaches that the way to paradise is through Mohammed and the teachings of the Koran. You can't have it both ways. Now, who do you think is right?

We don't teach that Muslims are saved. We teach that the only way we know of being saved is through faith in Christ followed by baptism. It's just that we don't rule out that God could apply Christ's redemption to non-Christians if He chose to.

 

[DHK]

We don't teach that Muslims are saved. We teach that the only way we know of being saved is through faith in Christ followed by baptism. It's just that we don't rule out that God could apply Christ's redemption to non-Christians if He chose to.

Are you sure about that?
From your Catechism:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#841

 

[JarJo]

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

It's a very ambiguous statement isn't it? "The plan of salvation" includes the entire history of the world, doesn't it? Isn't everything part of God's plan? It doesn't say that Muslims can be saved without converting to Christ.

However, I can see why you would read it that way. I suspect it was written to be ambiguous, unfortunately

 

[DHK]

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

It's a very ambiguous statement isn't it? "The plan of salvation" includes the entire history of the world, doesn't it? Isn't everything part of God's plan? It doesn't say that Muslims can be saved without converting to Christ.

However, I can see why you would read it that way. I suspect it was written to be ambiguous, unfortunately

The plan of salvation is written for the entire history of the world, that is true, that all that should believe on Christ as Lord should have eternal life.
Islam believes Christ is only a prophet, and that Mohammed is greater than Christ. What blasphemy! Will Christ accept such blasphemy as entrance into heaven?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

[The Biblicist]

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

It's a very ambiguous statement isn't it? "The plan of salvation" includes the entire history of the world, doesn't it? Isn't everything part of God's plan? It doesn't say that Muslims can be saved without converting to Christ.

However, I can see why you would read it that way. I suspect it was written to be ambiguous, unfortunately

Muslums repudiate the God of Abraham and down grade Jesus Christ to lower grade prophet to Muhammud. Muslims repudiate the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Does Rome believe "the plan of salvation" denies the Trinity, rejects Jesus Christ as the greatest prophet and only way of salvation??????

If this statement merely meant that the plan of salvation includes the whole world and all religions as POTENTIAL for salvation through the gospel then why say that the MUSLIM religion holds "first place" above any other heathen religion??????

 

[DHK]

We don't teach that Muslims are saved. We teach that the only way we know of being saved is through faith in Christ followed by baptism. It's just that we don't rule out that God could apply Christ's redemption to non-Christians if He chose to.

No, you don't even teach that.
From the same Catechism:

It taught that justification, whereby one's sins were remitted and one became just and could grow in holiness through good works "done in God," was an unmerited gift of God, but that those with the power of discretion must freely cooperate with grace.

Like every false religion in the world the RCC teaches a religion based on works, not faith; a religion of cooperation with God; not a religion of faith in the sacrificial blood of Christ. That is a heretical religion. It leaves one with the conclusion that the death of Christ was not sufficient enough to pay the penalty for one's sins. That is why you must work your way to heaven--in cooperation with Christ.
It denies the very words of Jesus in John 19:30, "It is finished."

RE: Muslims, God chose not to save Muslims because he abhors a demonic religion that brings the highly exalted King of kings down to the level of a prophet, and elevates an unsaved pedophile to a rank above that of Christ!!

 

[The Biblicist]

We don't teach that Muslims are saved. We teach that the only way we know of being saved is through faith in Christ followed by baptism. It's just that we don't rule out that God could apply Christ's redemption to non-Christians if He chose to.

That is not true! Rome teaches that devout persons in all non-Christians religions who no fault of their own sincerely seek after what they perceive to be god according to their conscience will be saved without Christ, without the gospel, without the church.

"Those who, through no fault of their own, DO NOT KNOW THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST or the Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a SINCERE HEART, and moved by grace, TRY IN THEIR ACTIONS to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - THOSE TOO MAY ACHIEVE SALVATION." - #847 CCC

Strictly a works salvation void of faith in Jesus Christ or the gospel and yet obtain salvation due to their own sincere perception of their own conscience.

First, there is no Scripture that says such can be saved this way. Conscience is suffient to condemn but not sufficient to save.

Second, Jesus said that "no man cometh to the Father but by me."

Third, if sincerety and ignorance can get people to heaven then we should keep our mouth shut and not complicate the process.

 

[DHK]

That's too much for me to read. However if your talking about the Deuteronical books the bible doesn't mention every book in the bible that is considered canon. If you consider just the books the bible mentions you would have fewer books. However, you still have to prove that the RCC doesn't follow the bible. You on the other hand treat the bible as a smorgishboard choosing what you want to believe. Just because you can't handle John 6 you refuse to believe what Jesus says about the eucharist.

What part of John 6 do you need teaching about. I have no problem. Do you think that there were two Christs physically present. Did one Christ take of his clone and offer part of it to his disciples? I would like to hear of your explanation. What kind of trick would that be?

 

[Zenas]

Making an image of Christ is making an image of God, unless of course, if you deny the deity of Christ. Christ is God. Have you ever seen Him, know what he looks like? Are you sure the picture you have is an actual and genuine portrayal? Did Christ himself sign it?
We have no right or authority to erect any images of God, and that includes His Son. It violates the Ten Commandments very very clearly.

DHK, you know very well what images and drawings of Jesus look like. If someone presented you with a stutue, you would know instantly whether it purpurts to be Jesus. We all may be surprised some day to learn that Jesus looks nothing like what we have imagined, but for now we have certain very unmistakable ideas about His appearance. Moreover, He was seen and touched by untold thousands of people in the 1st Century. 1 John 1:1. The only reason we don't have His exact likeness is because no one botherd to draw Him while He was here.

Why would God be against anyone honoring Him? That is what we do when we set up images of Him, even though they might not be accurate. Ronald Reagan is one of my personal heroes and I honor him by keeping a 10-inch statue of him on my desk. Reagan is dead but I'm sure he would be pleased if he were able to walk into my office and see that small statue of himself. I know it pleases me when I go to my daughter's office and there is a picture of me on her desk. As far as the Second Commandment is concerned, I am not bound by it or any other of the O.T. commandments EXCEPT insofar as they are supported by N.T. teachings. I haven't found a N.T. teaching that supports a literal reading of the Second Commandment.

Then do you have a problem putting images of Buddha, Ganesh (elephant god), Baal, Vishnu, Ram, and such other gods, all on a shelf in a living room for all to see?

I'm not sure what you mean.

1. Do people have a right to do this? Of course.

2. Is it right for people to do this? Well, they are worshiping false gods already, which is about as bad as it gets. I doubt that their sin is exacerbated by putting up their idols.

3. Does it offend me? Not really because I'm not around this kind of thing all that much. If I were, I may find it more offensive.

4. Would I put these things up? Of course not. It would not be wrong to do so, any more than it is wrong for a museum to house ancient idols, and I certainly wouldn't worship them or what they represent. However, I would refrain from doing so because they do not represent my brand. Someone seeing them might get the wrong idea. My brand is Christianity, and while I don't have a statue of Jesus in my front yard, I have often thought I ought to put one there.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you know very well what images and drawings of Jesus look like.

No I don't know, and neither do you. What you believe to be "Jesus" only exists in the mind of some artist who didn't have a clue what Christ looked like, had never seen him, and painted him with fair skin. What a farce! You do not know what Christ looked like; don't pretend that you do. I suppose you have his autograph as well.

If someone presented you with a stutue, you would know instantly whether it purpurts to be Jesus.

And the same person would give me the Mona Lisa for a dollar, wouldn't he?

We all may be surprised some day to learn that Jesus looks nothing like what we have imagined, but for now we have certain very unmistakable ideas about His appearance.

You are quite sure about this. You do know that they never had long hair in that era?

Moreover, He was seen and touched by untold thousands of people in the 1st Century. 1 John 1:1. The only reason we don't have His exact likeness is because no one botherd to draw Him while He was here.

And for good reason! We have enough existing "relics" of the cross that he died on to build a mansion.

Why would God be against anyone honoring Him? That is what we do when we set up images of Him, even though they might not be accurate.

God is not honored by images. He calls it sin. It is a violation of the Ten Commandments that he gave us. How can anything that clearly violates the Ten Commandments honor Christ? Where is your thinking here?

Ronald Reagan is one of my personal heroes and I honor him by keeping a 10-inch statue of him on my desk. Reagan is dead but I'm sure he would be pleased if he were able to walk into my office and see that small statue of himself.

Is he God, or a god? "Thou shalt not make any graven image or any likeness unto me (that is of God). So either you put Reagan on the same plane as God, or God on the same plane as Reagan. Which is it?

I know it pleases me when I go to my daughter's office and there is a picture of me on her desk.

Is it an image of her or of God, or is she both?

As far as the Second Commandment is concerned, I am not bound by it or any other of the O.T. commandments EXCEPT insofar as they are supported by N.T. teachings. I haven't found a N.T. teaching that supports a literal reading of the Second Commandment.

The Ten Commandments as a whole are mentioned over and over again.
Jesus said: God is spirit, they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24)--not via images and icons.

The Ten Commandments are mentioned here:
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I'm not sure what you mean.

1. Do people have a right to do this? Of course.

2. Is it right for people to do this? Well, they are worshiping false gods already, which is about as bad as it gets. I doubt that their sin is exacerbated by putting up their idols.

3. Does it offend me? Not really because I'm not around this kind of thing all that much. If I were, I may find it more offensive.

4. Would I put these things up? Of course not. It would not be wrong to do so, any more than it is wrong for a museum to house ancient idols, and I certainly wouldn't worship them or what they represent. However, I would refrain from doing so because they do not represent my brand. Someone seeing them might get the wrong idea. My brand is Christianity, and while I don't have a statue of Jesus in my front yard, I have often thought I ought to put one there.

First, you don't live in a museum; you live in a private house, a house which reflects your beliefs, you, who you are to a good extent. For example, I have Bible verses here and there. My Bible is visible, beside my chair. I have a shelf of commentaries and other related books near by.
I have been in other homes that are cluttered with beer cans, wine bottles, cigarette stubs and ash trays. Your home can tell me something about you.

A missionary in India helped another that was need. The man was very grateful and gave the missionary a gift. It was a large portrait of the man you call Jesus. India is primarily a Hindu nation. A few days later a Hindu came in, and upon seeing the picture of Jesus, immediately fell to his knees and began to worship him. He knew that "he" was "the god" of the missionary. Is this right?

So you would have many gods for people of different religions to come and worship at your house? Or maybe you could just be very ecumenical and worship more than one just like Israel did in the OT when she often followed after Baal and Ashteroth. Polytheism is an ancient practice. What kind of testimony would you be giving to others?

Your brand?? What is your brand? An image of a person's mixed up and confused imagination of who he thought Jesus Christ was--an idol. It is idolatry. Thou shalt have no gods before me. Thou shalt not make any images or likenesses thereof.
Clear enough?

 

[Zenas]

Clear enough?

Yes, you're either out of arguments or you have difficulty with the English language. Are you sure you aren't from the French speaking part of Canada? You were utterly nonresponsive to anything I said in my post so you must not have understood it.

 

[DHK]

Yes, you're either out of arguments or you have difficulty with the English language. Are you sure you aren't from the French speaking part of Canada? You were utterly nonresponsive to anything I said in my post so you must not have understood it.

Look! Go to Revelation chapter one. Read the description there given of Christ. Does that compare to the "images" you commonly find of Christ. I don't know the same Christ you know. If the Christ you know is Da Vinci's picture, I don't know who you are speaking of. That is not Christ. I have not seen him, and neither have you. Unsaved people have tried to picture him and you believe them. How gullible!

They that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth; sans images.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, you're either out of arguments or you have difficulty with the English language. Are you sure you aren't from the French speaking part of Canada? You were utterly nonresponsive to anything I said in my post so you must not have understood it.

I think it is you that fails to understand what you read. I read your remarks and the reponse of DHK and he answered every objection you offered.

We do not have any authentic pictures of Jesus but we do have a verbal description of Jesus by the Holy Spirit through the Prophets:

Isa. 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Mt. 10:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. [nazerite]19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.[non-nazerite]



Wouldn't you agree that the Holy Spirit knows how Jesus looked better than you or artists who never saw him??

1. He did not have a He-man form - "no form nor comeliness"
2. He was an ugly man - "no beauty that we should DESIRE him"
3. He was Jewish - not blondish brown with blue eyes and fine caucasion nose
4. He was from Nazereth - not a nazerite with long hair

One primary reason that Exodus 20:4 prohibits making images of things in heaven and especially God who is in heaven is because any image of God PERVERTS the truth about God because no visible image can portray an INVISIBLE God and no visible image can portray a OMNIPRESENT God and thus any image of God perverts God.

Every picture of Jesus Christ in existence perverts the true Biblical description of Christ as given by the Holy Spirit. An ugly Jew with short hair and a beard without any dynamic appearance whatsoever, but so plain, that Judas had to be hired to point him out from other Jews.

 

[Walter]

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/taking-the-measure-of-relics-of-the-true-cross/

That statement about 'enough relics of the cross to build a mansion' seems to be a myth according to this article.

 

[The Biblicist]

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/taking-the-measure-of-relics-of-the-true-cross/

That statement about 'enough relics of the cross to build a mansion' seems to be a myth according to this article.

Relics breed superstitious reverence for them. That is one reason for Exodus 20:4 in order to prevent what is described in Exodus 20:5. That is exactly why the brazen serpent had to be destroyed because superstitious people would end up directing acts of worship toward it.