How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[Thinkingstuff]

Exodus 32:5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
The made a feast to the LORD. the word LORD is the same word as JEHOVAH.
In their minds the calf was Jehovah. the feast that they had was dancing around and worshiping Jehovah (the calf). That is what the text says. The calf represented Jehovah. The feast was unto Jehovah, and unto him they brought their offerings (32:6). This is what happened.

Jehovah is a made up word. It is a compliation word. Title or Person?

 

[DHK]

Shortly after this incident the nation of Israel is punished. Thousands die. Moses is summoned up to the Mount again. He receives the Law again, and he receives it in more detail. In Exodus 34 here are two of the laws that he receives:

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
--This is law is easy enough to understand. They were not to worship any other god. It is further explained in verses 15 and 16. They were not to do sacrifice unto the heathen gods of the pagan nations that surrounded them. Obviously these were images of pagan gods that already existed.

Exodus 34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
--Why the repetition? It is not a repetition, but a different command. They were not to make a molten god that represented Jehovah himself. The Israelites had already fallen into this trap once before with the golden calf. They were not to do it again. These are spelled out here very thoroughly as God says: If my people are going to keep my covenant this is what they must do...
--These are the two aspects of the second and third commandments of the Ten Commandments.

 

[DHK]

Jehovah is a made up word. It is a compliation word. Title or Person?

It is the covenant name the God gave to Israel. It was His personal name that He gave to them and no other.

The ineffable name of God among the Hebrews. It never has the article before it,
nor is it found in the plural form. The Jews never pronounced this name; and
wherever it occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, the substituted for it, in reading, the
word ADONAI, Lord, or ELOHIM, God. See GOD. In the Hebrew Bible, it is always
written with the vowels of one or the other of these words. Its ancient pronunciation
is by many thought to have been Yahweh, but this is not certain. Its meaning is HE
IS the same as I AM, the person only being changed. Thus it denotes the
self-existence, independence, immutability, and infinite fullness of the divine Being,
which is a pledge that he will fulfil all his promises. (ATSD)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Shortly after this incident the nation of Israel is punished. Thousands die. Moses is summoned up to the Mount again. He receives the Law again, and he receives it in more detail. In Exodus 34 here are two of the laws that he receives:

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
--This is law is easy enough to understand. They were not to worship any other god. It is further explained in verses 15 and 16. They were not to do sacrifice unto the heathen gods of the pagan nations that surrounded them. Obviously these were images of pagan gods that already existed.

Exodus 34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
--Why the repetition? It is not a repetition, but a different command. They were not to make a molten god that represented Jehovah himself. The Israelites had already fallen into this trap once before with the golden calf. They were not to do it again. These are spelled out here very thoroughly as God says: If my people are going to keep my covenant this is what they must do...
--These are the two aspects of the second and third commandments of the Ten Commandments.

No it has nothing to do with YHWH. It has to do with man made gods in the representation of something in creation. Look I know a better verse for you to use than the ones you keep quoting but I don't want to spoon feed you. The best argument is not these verse which relate to man made gods but the eventual worship of the serpent that moses made to heal the people. As much as I direct you to use a better verse you didn't take it. Repetition was not used to show how and idol related to God but to emphasise a point. What point was that? "Don't make a false idol to worship a false god!"

 

[DHK]

No it has nothing to do with YHWH.

The ASV clearly states:

Exodus 32:5 And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow shall be a feast to Jehovah.

Exodus 32:5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh." (WEB)

This was the covenant name given to Israel.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The ASV clearly states:

Exodus 32:5 And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow shall be a feast to Jehovah.

Exodus 32:5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh." (WEB)

This was the covenant name given to Israel.

Ok.

1) First, when the Israelites spoke of their new idol as their “god” they consistently used a term which the pagans used for their gods (which, as the marginal reading of our text indicates, is plural). It can be used of Yahweh, but I don’t think it is used in this sense by the Israelites. Only Aaron spoke of this “god” in terms reserved for Yahweh (cf. v. 5). I believe that Aaron was feebly and foolishly trying to syncretize the false worship of the people with the true worship of Yahweh. Israel’s “golden god” will be given credit for leading Israel out of Egypt, and will be the guarantee of future victory in battle, as the Israelites press on to dispossess the Canaanites and dwell in the promised land.

So in context with the rest of the verse. We see consistent use of the terms for false gods and then with this one statement about the feast Aaron uses the term Jehovah (an amalgamation to prevent from useing Gods name). It would seem then as the commentary above states that there was this attempt to combine the two. So that God was relegated to being equal with the other gods that in the end the Isrealites wanted to follow. Which is why they used a Cow.

 

[DHK]

Ok.



So in context with the rest of the verse. We see consistent use of the terms for false gods and then with this one statement about the feast Aaron uses the term Jehovah (an amalgamation to prevent from useing Gods name). It would seem then as the commentary above states that there was this attempt to combine the two. So that God was relegated to being equal with the other gods that in the end the Isrealites wanted to follow. Which is why they used a Cow.

Yes, often throughout their history, the Israelites had a syncrestic religion: worshiping a false god on one hand, while still clinging to the worship of Jehovah on the other. At times it is hard to distinguish between the two.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, often throughout their history, the Israelites had a syncrestic religion: worshiping a false god on one hand, while still clinging to the worship of Jehovah on the other. At times it is hard to distinguish between the two.

So is it this then that God is prohibiting rather than making icons in images of things to remind us of God? In other words don't make God equal to other gods. If you're right with your original statement then throw out the pictures of the wife and kids because they may cause you to sin.

 

[DHK]

So is it this then that God is prohibiting rather than making icons in images of things to remind us of God? In other words don't make God equal to other gods. If you're right with your original statement then throw out the pictures of the wife and kids because they may cause you to sin.

No, that is foolishness. And I already said that is not the case.
God is prohibiting icons of himself, that is images of either Him or of Jesus, who is God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, that is foolishness. And I already said that is not the case.
God is prohibiting icons of himself, that is images of either Him or of Jesus, who is God.

Then follow the whole scriptures and through all graven images out! Foolishness! Are you saying raka to me? You do know what the scriptures say about that? So I take it you didn't watch Ben Hur, 10 commandments, the passion, etc...

 

[DHK]

Then follow the whole scriptures and through all graven images out! Foolishness! Are you saying raka to me? You do know what the scriptures say about that? So I take it you didn't watch Ben Hur, 10 commandments, the passion, etc...

No, I didn't call you a fool. That is foolishness, meaning your position.
You are right, in that I do not agree with the way Hollywood portrays such films about God and Christ. I stand by what I say. It is wrong to make an image or likeness of God or Christ.
That is what the second and third commandment mean, and that is what the RCC continue to disobey.
As a former Catholic I went around the 15 stations of the cross, knelt in front of every one of them and prayed. That is sin. It is idolatry. I am saved and delivered from that kind of sin. I will never return to it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

God is prohibiting icons of himself, that is images of either Him or of Jesus, who is God.

We, YOU and I are icons DHK! We are made in the image and likeness of GOD! Furthermore, what you claim flys in the face of the Incarnation.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

We, YOU and I are icons DHK! We are made in the image and likeness of GOD! Furthermore, what you claim flys in the face of the Incarnation.

In XC
-

Did God make icons. You can take that up with God. I would not accuse him of such folly, however!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Did God make icons. You can take that up with God. I would not accuse him of such folly, however!

Are YOU DHK made in the image and likeness of God? Do you by your being born in the image of God break the 2nd commandment?

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Are YOU DHK made in the image and likeness of God? Do you by your being born in the image of God break the 2nd commandment?

In XC
-

Your question really is:

Late Greek eikōn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians

Am I that? Is that what God made, when He made me? You speak blasphemy.

That is the dictionary definition of an icon.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/icon

 

[Marcia]

I also trust God's word Marcia and we agree on much. That is why I am quite reluctant to describe the church as "the invisible body of Christ" when those words do not actually appear in scripture.
Blessings

Hello, Brian - Those words may not be in the Bible but the word we translate as "church" is (the called out people) and I think it's a reasonable, logical conclusion to say this is the body of believers. Such a thing is not visible in the sense that it's a certain specific church (denomination, building, etc.). :wavey:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Your question really is...You speak blasphemy.

First, let's try and not put words in my mouth DHK.
Second, you said:

God is prohibiting icons of himself, that is images of either Him or of Jesus, who is God.​

No, DHK, you're not a 2 dimensional painting, you're being silly again. We are made in the image and likeness of God, we are an icon of God, by the very proper definition of the word icon, is "image".

So DHK, I ask again, are YOU made in the "image" and likeness or God?

And please, let's try and keep from throwing the word blasphemy around at people...if you don't understand something that's okay DHK, just say it and we'll explain it to you.

In XC
-

 

[Emily25069]

Well

You all are certainly a lot more educated on this than I am.

Reguarding the icons, etc..
Since there are no scriptures suggesting that we use anything like that, but there are certainly scriptures suggesting that it is sin to use images like that, I think I'll stay away.

Even the image of the snake that Moses made was burned because people started worshipping it, right?

Really, I understand the EO argument for them. I do think its sad that we dont honor and remember the saints who paved the way for us. I just recently read a book on it, but really, the whole thing sounds like the devils trickery. If he can convince people that they arent worshipping, then they will go ahead and do it. Its like denial.


Of course I could be wrong. I've been wrong once or twice. (or a thousand times)

All I do know, is that sola scriptura seems faulty by itself because it has resulted in so many different types of churches. I dont think that one can really take the bible and decide with only the bible what is true. We need other people and history to help us with it.

Now.. the two churches that claim to be the right ones both look sort of .. eh to me. They have very questionable practices, so I find myself in a bit of a predicament.

I dont like that the baptists who pound their bibles are adament that baptism and the lords supper are not sacramental, even though if you take the texts by themselves, it really sounds as though they ARE sacramental. ESPECIALLY the Lords supper.. There were many who didnt walk with Jesus anymore because they couldnt accept that difficult teaching. though I guess thats a whole new topic.

I should probably just become Lutheran and get it over with. It definately looks as though that is where I'll end up.

btw-I do think that the gospel is present in the Catholic churches. I didnt hear it when I was being raised a Catholic, but I sure do now when I go. I think maybe when I became a protestant, that is when my faith became personal. Now when I go to the Catholic church, Im all ears. I hear many good things there, and I LOVE the worship. When I go to a Catholic church, I really feel as though I actually have worshipped God. When I go to my baptist church, I wonder if the sermon is going to be good or boring. Either way, baptist or Catholic, God does want our hearts and either of those options can become mundane and simply ceremonial.

WOw I've said a lot.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, I didn't call you a fool. That is foolishness, meaning your position.
You are right, in that I do not agree with the way Hollywood portrays such films about God and Christ. I stand by what I say. It is wrong to make an image or likeness of God or Christ.
That is what the second and third commandment mean, and that is what the RCC continue to disobey.
As a former Catholic I went around the 15 stations of the cross, knelt in front of every one of them and prayed. That is sin. It is idolatry. I am saved and delivered from that kind of sin. I will never return to it.

I don't agree with your logic. If you are right. The ark of the covenant was idolatry (seraphim), The temple was idolatry (images of seraphim), man himself is idolatry since we are made in the image of God.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

All pictures of people must be idolatry. All pictures of animals is idolatry. All pictures representing the heavens are idolatry because specifically it says :

8 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 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 fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Cameras are anathema to your theology if I follow your logic to its conclusion. God does not want idolatry to worship other gods or treat God equal to other gods or as part of a pantheon of Gods. Aaron was trying to get out of trouble by lying and tried to convince himself and the people it was ok to make this calf becasue it was a feast to the Lord as if God were a part of many ways!

The stations of the cross are to remind people of Jesus' passion! Did you worship them or did you honor Christ? Do those pictures have the power to heal? NO. Do they remind you of what our lord suffered for our sins? That is their intent. When you bowed was it out of respect for Jesus or was it in hopes that the pictures themselves would save you? Catholics do not believe that! I know, I was a catholic once even as you once were. So, I do know! The pictures (for that is what they are) are a reminder of God and we worship him. If you worship them as though they have power in of themselves to save then yes you worshiped them and you sinned. God wants us talking about him all the time. Thinking about him all the time. So that we never ever forget him in every moment of our lives pictures help this once again:

1 These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life.....6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates

That we might answer the call "let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"

 

[DHK]

First, let's try and not put words in my mouth DHK.
Second, you said:

God is prohibiting icons of himself, that is images of either Him or of Jesus, who is God.​

No, DHK, you're not a 2 dimensional painting, you're being silly again. We are made in the image and likeness of God, we are an icon of God, by the very proper definition of the word icon, is "image".

So DHK, I ask again, are YOU made in the "image" and likeness or God?

And please, let's try and keep from throwing the word blasphemy around at people...if you don't understand something that's okay DHK, just say it and we'll explain it to you.

In XC
-

Though you claim to be Orthodox, you act like a Catholic and redefine words at your own will and whim. I gave you the definition of "icon." You seem bent on refusing it. The Scripture says that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God. That has nothing to do with icons. Need not to go down that road. It is a red herring.

It is too simplistic a meaning to refer to icon as an image. I do not count the dollar bill in my wallet as an icon, though it have a picture on it.
I have a picture of my family, an image. It is not an icon.

From the same source, the next definition of icon is:

an object of uncritical devotion : idol

As I said, your definition is far too simplistic. You change definitions to fit your own theology. You will do that with words like: sin, worship, adoration, veneration, prayer, grace, etc. You will change the meanings of all these words just to suit your own theology. It is a disgrace to Christianity. And you are doing the same here with the word "icon." I am not going to be conned into running down your rabbit trail.