The mode matters and baptism does do something. It shows and demonstrates that a person is saved and is a follower of Christ. Baptism itself is not regenerative. Stop trying to put words in my mouth as it does not work.
Joe
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Have You Ever Attended...
- Thread starter Novelist
- Start date
Joe
Are you kidding me? The shroud is no proof at all. It has been contested too often as being a hoax. Read Matthew 26: 47-50. Jesus looked like every other citizen at the time, and they were not blue eyed long haired blonds. If Jesus looked different, then why did Judas have to kiss him to show that he was the one they were looking for?
Joe
GentleGospeller
Active Member
I have not said that. I was simply exhibiting the various Catholic names for the things you had mentioned. This thread is about attendance to a Catholic church service - (as per OP - Have You Ever Attended... ), and not specifically about Catholic doctrines / practices and whether any specific one of them is right or wrong; as for that another thread could be made to specifically address those other things more specifically. I did not perceive this thread to be a discussion of those things in and of themselves, but merely sharing about one's personal experiences at such services.
Glad I was able to answer it for you.
Joe
In my OP, I asked "What was your take on it?" So, that being said, one's "take on it" can and will lead to some of the discussions that have come about here. I see no problem with that.
Joe
GentleGospeller
Active Member
The various depictions of Jesus will vary from place to place in the Catholic Dioceses / Parishes. Not all Catholic churches / Cathedrals / Basilicas / offices have the same depictions of Jesus. Jesus was obviously not a "Swede", and I know of no Roman Catholic who thinks He was, since He had to be of the tribe of Juda (Gen. 49:10; Mat. 2:6; Heb. 7:14; Rev. 5:5), a Jew, an Israelite, an Hebrew. What Jesus exactly looked like is up to some speculation, as the scriptures only give some generalized details.
However, there is a known image (several basic likenesses which follow after available online) which is purported (by some) to be a likeness based on a sketch from an etching in an Emerald:
THE LEGEND-MYTHOS (Unsubstantiated)
- "... From the only authentic likeness of our Saviour, cut on an emerald by command of Tiberius Caesar, and given later to pope innocent VII from the treasury at Constantinople, by the emperor of the Turks, for the ransom of his brother, then a captive of the “Christians”. ..." - Painting of Jesus
- "... The Emerald Cesar (Jesus of the Emerald) Portrait was last seen in Constantinople and was traded by the Ottoman Sultan to Pope Innocent VIII. ..." - The Potrait of Jesus: What Christ Looked Like
- "... So, in early 1986 a letter was written with a copy of the likeness to the Pontifical University of Rome. A couple months later I received this response:
- 2 June, 1986
- Mr. Clever, from my rector of the University Fr. Navarrate I received your letter of March 23 of this year. On your question I can answer as follows:
- The emerald with the portrait of Christ (similar to your foto) was given by the Sultan Bajazid II to the Pope Innocent VIII (+ 1492). The Emerald disappeared probably with the sack of Rome (1527). But the same profile-image of Christ appears on papal medals, as of the Pope Julius III. There exists also paintings of the flemish school. The illustration of such a painting and further information you will find in: Pauline Hinze, Deus Homo, Vol. I, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Berlin (Eastern Germany), Berlin 1973, fig. 8, page 28 f.
- Sincerely yours,
- Fr. Heinrich Pfeiffer, S.J.
- Pontifical Universita Gregoriana
- 00187 Roma - Piazza Della Pilotta, 4 ..." - What Did Jesus Christ Look Like? presented by Charles & Tish Clever
- 2 June, 1986
Bayezid II - Bayezid II - Wikipedia
Innocent VIII (Giovanni Battista Cybo) - Pope Innocent VIII - Wikipedia
See also - https://www.ansichtskartenversand.c...ichtige-Bild-unseres-Heilandes-Jesus/?&lang=2
See also - https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...wxrGHHGW1TwO2H7T3fOXw-1Wdb-fSIGsA&oe=6890C4DE
The following are replicas or copies or fascimilies based on the said etching in the Emerald. Take them with a grain of salt, and whether it is or is not the case is no matter to me. Just sharing for the info:
GentleGospeller
Active Member
It's your thread, do with it what you will, as I was trying to stay as close to the wording of the OP as possible, so as not to offend.
I know that Jesus was not a "Swede" and I never said he was. Many catholic portraits depict him as looking like a Swede and are not meant to say he was a Swede. As for these portraits presented here, none of them are accurate. Not one of them portray Jesus as being Middle Eastern in appearance. Does it matter? Yes it does. If Catholic churches are wrong on this point (and I believe they are), then they can be just as easily wrong on many other points. But, if they disregard the Bible as being the only and final word of God, and that there are other factors regarding their beliefs such as tradition and later added Bible books, and non-biblical teachings passed down from previous generations, then anything could have been made up and added to their beliefs along the way. This is what happened and they just believe what they want to believe with no basis on truth and what the Bible actually teaches.
Joe
GentleGospeller
Active Member
Not to offend, but you seem a bit agitated in your responses, or at least that is how it is coming through for me. I did not say you said Jesus was a "Swede" either. I was simply responding to the fact, that the Catholic church has varying depictions of Jesus, as do most denominations that accept him. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses have their imagery of Jesus (albeit differing than most depictions found).
Generally, I would assume, it is so that others in that local area who look after a certain fashion might mentally relate more closely to Him Whom they read (and hear) of in scripture. It is possible, genetically speaking, for Jesus to have blue eyes among the Jews, and to have lighter skinned and hair complexion, even though most would accept a more normalized brown complexion, eye color and hair.
Yes, I understood that. I was simply saying that Catholicism was not attempting to depict Jesus as being a "Swede". Some take license with their art and others think they have evidence to their imagination of Him.
Oh? How did you determine this? With what standard are you comparing these images to?
Those images are of a middle eastern man. The history attests to this, even if it is not actually of Jesus Himself.
Depends on what you mean by asking the question. All truth matters of course. Some things, such as this, are no real reason to 'disfellowship' over. In other words, among the various doctrines / practices for Christians in scripture, it is not really something to argue over too much.
All truth matters of course. How big a deal is this issue among the many that exist?, however is a far greater question.
Being "wrong" on art is way down on the list of things to worry about (like depicting Jesus on a pole / palisade as the WTS does, rather than a cross with patibulum / crossbar; should such be considered in the light of the Bible and history? Sure, but think about how important it is to get the instrument of suffering right as opposed to the suffering of Christ right). Yet, even so, you have not demonstrated why such imagery is "wrong" in the first place. You have made several claims, but have not backed them up with anything of substance, other than you are citing 'you'. I do not mean to be too forward or rude here to you, in the least. I am simply asking, that if you are going to be so bold on this issue, as to have some evidence, as like I presented, on the matter to judge by. So far, I have not even seen a single scripture, let alone an historical source from you, about this subject. It does not mean you do not have any, but you have not yet produced any in backing the claims made.
Not to defend Catholic (or any denominational) images of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus, but even a rudimentary Google query will give an affirmation to the possibility of blue eyes, and lighter complexion of some Jews even during the times of Jesus' day, even if it was more rare complexion. Remember that Jesus' bloodline has members which are not of Israel, but of Gentiles as well. Not really that big a deal one way or the other. I would think the WTS depiction of Jesus on the pole more concerning than this in matter of art.
I think it is quite a far stretch to go from a depiction of Jesus, which may or may not be closer to the reality (and where is the standard to determine all else from) in your personal opinion, and then to go to the extreme position about other matters unrelated to it (Bible, Canon, teachings, &c.). I know of no official Catholic teaching that dogmatically states that Jesus had blue eyes and blond hair. It is just an image in some of their places of worship that some like aesthetically. Some who go to those places may not even like that depiction at all. Whomever hangs it, and allows it to stay has the authority there.
Not everything that Catholicism does is in error. As an ex-Roman Catholic, I can say, there is a lot of things which are found in scripture itself that are present in doctrine and practice.
Nice to meet ya Joe.
I stand by all of what I have written. Nice try in taking what I have written piece by piece and then trying to rebut it all, but it doesn't work. BTW, you call yourself a "non-Baptist Christian" which explains a lot. I can understand why you take the views you take, and I completely disagree with you. You have not seen a single scripture? If you will look back some, you will see that I have. Try Matthew 25: 47-50.
Joe
Last edited:
GentleGospeller
Active Member
You take offense that I am a non-Baptist Christian? Perhaps you would like to start another thread on that, and I would be happy to join you there to discuss why I am not a 'Baptist'.
Matthew 25:47-50? There is no such text in scripture. I assume you meant Matthew 26:47-50 and simply made a common mistake as we all do on occasion.
I saw where you cited in response to Cathode, Matthew 3:15 - Have You Ever Attended...
I see where you cited Matthew 23:9 in general - Have You Ever Attended...
I see where you cited Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15, Acts 1:8, Romans 10:14, 2nd Timothy 4:2, Matthew 24:14, Isaiah 52:7, and Luke 14: 23. about "Altar Call" - Have You Ever Attended...
I see where you cited Matthew 26: 47-50. in response to Cathode about the shroud of Turin - Have You Ever Attended...
Here are the texts:
Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
Mat 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
Mat 26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
What do these texts have to do with the subject of Jesus' likeness in complexion, looks? The context is that they are literally in a garden just outside the city, at night, in the darkness, with only a full moon for light, and possibly torches, and everyone wearing a cloak or clothes to keep warm, as it was cold that night, even as Peter tried warming himself by a fire in a central courtyard.
Yes, you are correct in that I did make a typo on the verse. It is Matthew 26 and not chapter 25. As far as everything else you wrote, I have to politely disagree. I still stand by what I have written. Just go back and read what I have written, read the verses I have referred to, think about it, apply those thoughts to what I have written and you will see what I have meant. Do that instead of just trying to prove me wrong on all points. No, I am not offended by you referring to yourself as a non-Baptist Christian, I just understand where you are coming from. Please stop taking everything I say out of context.
Joe
GentleGospeller
Active Member
I think I will move on to other threads.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
Well since you are a Catholic, your perception would be obvious wouldn't it?
I can go along with this - as far as your explanation goes anyway. It goes without saying that works (actions) are outward expressions of the faith and love in which you profess to possess.
However, what is this source of "Love" of which you are speaking? Love that is human in origin is corrupt, rife with ulterior motives and so forth! Would you not agree with this?
Or as Larry Norman famously said - "Without love, you ain't nothin' without without love..."
I believe your implication here is that all three (faith, hope, and love) are necessary prerequisites for salvation? I would reword this saying that all three of these are outward evidence of salvation. Such is plainly evident in the story of Zacchaeus in Lk 19:2-10 whereby Jesus makes observation of such outward actions declaring that "Salvation had come to his house." He did not give half his goods to the poor and restore those he cheated in order to be saved but rather as a response to the saving grace he did receive. Jesus observed this from the standpoint of his humanity and thus made the declaration.
Illustrating from the standpoint of absurdity here; had Zacchaeus "prayed to accept Christ as his Savior asking him into his heart" and continued on with his dishonesty and cheating as a tax collector, Jesus's statement would be far different - perhaps more akin to that which he would give to the scribes and pharisees?
Being the good Catholic that you are, you dutifully cite the epistle of James (Faith without works is dead) but we need to be mindful of who James was addressing and in what context was he making such a statement. It is clear that he was making this statement to those he was addressing in this writing - expressing criticism towards those who possess an "empty faith" of which we are speaking. When James speaks of "showing his faith by his works," who is he showing this faith to? Is he "proving" his faith to God or to men?
As Martin Luther famously said (but often conveniently ignored), "We are justified by faith alone but faith is never alone!"
Before God, we are justified forensically - we are "Declared Righteous" through faith in Christ
Before men, our faith is justified by our works (outward deeds, actions, etc.) and yes, we use such to make judgement regarding the authenticity of one's salvation! Everyone (lost or saved) does such.
This is sooooo close here! Yes, the love of God that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us (Rom 5:5) is Christ working in and through us and such must absolutely be evident! I believe this shows a very subtle yet profound difference between the Catholic and Evangelical understanding of faith, justification, and sanctification. Catholics are "Synergistic" believing that they must cooperate and work with this grace acting through you and that such works together for your justification as well as your sanctification. Evangelicals are "Monergistic" on the other hand (not the "Calvinist" monergism here) believing that their salvation is all of Grace, that we are walking in a "new life" where Christ is working in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. One is working and striving whereas the other is resting simply "letting their light shine before men that they may see their good works..."
Last edited: