Is it idolatry?

[JonC]

The priest you spoke to had it backwards. Here is St. Justin Martyr, writing in about 155 A.D., describing to the Roman Emperor Antoninus how the pagans were copying the Christian Eucharist.

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body'; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.' Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either or can learn." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66

1 Cor 11:22 dispels the concept that the Eucharist was just a meal. They weren't serving steak and potatoes with a side of Eucharist. For the Apostle tells the Corinthians that they have homes in which to have their meals.

Rather, something deeper happened at the Last Supper, something that originated back in Exodus.

Perhaps pagans were also copying the Supper. That does not change the fact Roman paganism held to Communion 100 years before Martyr was born. Also, the RCC Sacrament was foreign to Martyr (Martyr died before the RCC came into being).

 

[Walpole]

Yes. An artist's representation, of Jesus, is one thing (not to be worshipped, ever), and 'kissing' it entirely something else (idolatry).

Now read this for addressing the 'Lord's supper'. (It is quite lengthy, but addresses all concerns) - Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated Substantially :P

You will find that Romanism cannot address the points made.

The "kissing" in the OP was meant to show reverence toward that which symbolizes / represents Christ. The parallel is consuming bread and wine which is also said to symbolize / represent Christ.

I don't understand how one is an idolatrous act while the other is not.

 

[Alofa Atu]

The "kissing" in the OP was meant to show reverence toward that which symbolizes / represents Christ. The parallel is consuming bread and wine which is also said to symbolize / represent Christ.

I don't understand how one is an idolatrous act while the other is not.

Kissing the object is not reverence to Jesus Christ, it is blasphemous to him. It is verily as the kiss of Judas (who had the wrong Jesus in mind, a false representation, rather than the real before him). Judas had the outward show of piety, but the heart was wrong and therefore violated the actual worship of Jesus and so betrayed with a kiss. All who kiss such an thing, as a representation, in reality do the same, though many do it in ignorance, rather than animosity, but the sin is the sin, though God winks at ignorance, but would desire that all come to repentance and knowledge of the truth.

You know the truth, and if you therefore continue in rebellion to it, your stripes will be to that amount of knowledge.

Following the command of Christ, in eating and drinking the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (juice of the grape), in faith, is obedience to His command, which is real worship. Making a mockery of it as Romanism does with its witchcraft is blasphemous to him, and is as Judas, the real apostle from which that system arises.

 

[Walpole]

Perhaps pagans were also copying the Supper. That does not change the fact Roman paganism held to Communion 100 years before Martyr was born. Also, the RCC Sacrament was foreign to Martyr (Martyr died before the RCC came into being).

Please post your evidence of Roman pagans having a ceremony by which they believed bread and wine were the body and blood of one of their gods.

I find this assertion odd given that the pagan Romans accused the early Christians of cannibalism. Why would they be charging Christians with cannibalism if they were already familiar with the practice in their own rites?

 

[Walpole]

Kissing the object is not reverence to Jesus Christ, it is blasphemous to him. It is verily as the kiss of Judas (who had the wrong Jesus in mind, a false representation, rather than the real before him). Judas had the outward show of piety, but the heart was wrong and therefore violated the actual worship of Jesus and so betrayed with a kiss. All who kiss such an thing, as a representation, in reality do the same, though many do it in ignorance, rather than animosity, but the sin is the sin, though God winks at ignorance, but would desire that all come to repentance and knowledge of the truth.

You know the truth, and if you therefore continue in rebellion to it, your stripes will be to that amount of knowledge.

Why is kissing an image of Jesus blasphemous?

Following the command of Christ, in eating and drinking the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (juice of the grape), in faith, is obedience to His command, which is real worship. Making a mockery of it as Romanism does with its witchcraft is blasphemous to him, and is as Judas, the real apostle from which that system arises.

Help me understand why kissing an image of Jesus is blasphemous, but using unleavened bread and fruit of the vine to represent Jesus in real worship is not blasphemous and idolatrous?

And what evidence is there that Judas started Romanism? I have never heard this assertion before.

 

[JonC]

Please post your evidence of Roman pagans having a ceremony by which they believed bread and wine were the body and blood of one of their gods.

I find this assertion odd given that the pagan Romans accused the early Christians of cannibalism. Why would they be charging Christians with cannibalism if they were already familiar with the practice in their own rites?

They did not believe bread and wine became the flesh and blood of a god.

They viewed the ritual consumption of the meat and wine associated with the god to be partaking of the god.

This is not isolated to Roman paganism. Even ANE paganism belueved what was done to an idol was done to the god (it was more than symbolic).

If you are unfamiliar, the place to start would be ANE paganism, paticularly idols and sacrifice (and the ANE concept of atonement/ appeasement). Then get a good book on Hellenstic and Roman paganism.

This will help, I think. But you have to remember sacramentalism was not present in the early church (look for what changed and ask yourself why it occurred).

 

[Adonia]

The authority for the RCC is the RCC (not Scripture).

Not quite. Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. The only thing you have right is the Roman Church sees itself as THE Christian Church established by God Himself in the form of Jesus Christ, and thus retains it's authority here on earth. As an aside, it's funny how the scriptural interpretation remains basically the same between the Latin Church and the Eastern Church - even after the great schism in the 11th century. It's only hundreds of years later do the scriptural interpretations take a radically different turn.

 

[Adonia]

This will help, I think. But you have to remember sacramentalism was not present in the early church (look for what changed and ask yourself why it occurred).

In how early a church? This is irrelevant anyway because the Christian Church was evolving from the 1st century onward. The theological thinking of the Bishops entrusted with the new faith plowed forward - from the concept of the Trinity right on through the establishment of the 7 sacraments which every Christian adhered to for over a millennia until the renegades arrived on the scene.

 

[Oseas3]

I'm guessing by the tone of your post you don't have a successful record of leading the lost to the truth.

Your argument is inconsistent for me, If , in accord your own words, you are "guessing (or pretending) the tone of my post don't have a successful record of leading the lost to the truth" , oh it is because you don't know Truth, the Truth of God, of course.

OK. OK. I can give the answer you want, but tell me and unto all here: Do you know what is idolatry? Could you convince us you know it?

Tell us: What is idolatry? Do you know by chance?

I already have the answer you want about this matter, I will give it unto you in the next post, after you respond this post.

I am waiting.

 

[JonC]

Not quite. Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. The only thing you have right is the Roman Church sees itself as THE Christian Church established by God Himself in the form of Jesus Christ, and thus retains it's authority here on earth. As an aside, it's funny how the scriptural interpretation remains basically the same between the Latin Church and the Eastern Church - even after the great schism in the 11th century. It's only hundreds of years later do the scriptural interpretations take a radically different turn.

I disagree - Scripture is secondary to its interpretation by the Catholic Church. In other words, apart from the RCC Scripture has no authority (otherwise doctrines like the Immaculate Conception could never exist).

I don't see why we would expect anything but similar interpretations between the Latin and Eastern Church. They are 11th century daughters of a parent born centuries after the early church came into being.

 

[Adonia]

I fail to see How eating bread and drinking wine helps people live holy lives. Since the only thing really Holy is God.

So in your estimation we mortals cannot live holy and pleasing lives to God? That we cannot ever be holy persons? I'm sorry, but I disagree strongly with that. Yes, such a thing is difficult, but not out of the question.

"Sacrament" is just a word, and they are merely the things we do that can help us in this life. What is in that we should do, holy marriage to one person or a life of fornication? Once coming to a belief in Christ is it getting baptized in the faith or nothing? Or your pastor or priest, should there be such a thing as an ordination or once again nothing?

As for "eating bread and drinking wine", it is a communion with Christ, the Creator come to earth, which recognizes His sacrifice and to me there isn't a higher plane on this earth that a professing Christian can ever be on. But then again, I can understand your feelings on this as our doctrines lead us to a different place on this particular issue.

 

[JonC]

In how early a church? This is irrelevant anyway because the Christian Church was evolving from the 1st century onward. The theological thinking of the Bishops entrusted with the new faith plowed forward - from the concept of the Trinity right on through the establishment of the 7 sacraments which every Christian adhered to for over a millennia until the renegades arrived on the scene.

Antiquity is no proof of validity, I agree with you here.

What I was pointing out is the differences in authority. Scripture pre-dates the Catholic Church by centuries. People like me look to Scripture as the authority. Catholics rely on an orgination to tell them what Scripture means. That is the obstacle. The RCC has absolutely no biblical mandate or authority for its existence except what it looks back to claim. In this it is no different from several other religious organizations.

 

[Adonia]

daughters of a parent born centuries after the early church came into being.

There you go, trying to tell us that the early church was Baptist. Sorry, I'm not buying that.

 

[Adonia]

The RCC has absolutely no biblical mandate or authority for its existence except what it looks back to claim. In this it is no different from several other religious organizations.

As your sect does when it claims the early church was Baptist. Go read the writings of the ECF's, those Bishop's of the Christian Church in the early centuries - they were Catholic (Universalists) to the core. Remember, your founder John Smyth couldn't even agree with the first renegades (of the Protestant movement).

 

[JonC]

There you go, trying to tell us that the early church was Baptist. Sorry, I'm not buying that.

I am not sure where you got that idea.

I was pointing out it was not Catholic, not that it was Baptist.

 

[JonC]

As your sect does when it claims the early church was Baptist. Go read the writings of the ECF's, those Bishop's of the Christian Church in the early centuries - they were Catholic (Universalists) to the core. Remember, your founder John Smyth couldn't even agree with the first renegades (of the Protestant movement).

My sect?

I am Baptist. Not a Landmarkist. Do you understand what "Baptist" means?

My denomination is Southern Baptist. There were no Southern Baptists prior to the 19th Century just as there were no Catholics prior to the 4th Century.

 

[Adonia]

I am not sure where you got that idea.

You mean you were not trying to say that in a roundabout way? Sorry, my mistake. Many Baptists do claim that the early church was Baptist, I have read that right on this board.

 

[robycop3]

Let's remember what Jesus did as He introduced Communion, or the "Lord's Supper", whichever ya prefer to call it. In those days, bread didn't come conveniently slices as we get it at a store. People generally broke off pieces from a loaf with their hands, making the saying "breaking bread". Jesus took the bread on the table & broke it into pieces for each disciple, calling it His flesh. He poured out drink for each, calling it His blood. Yet. He was before them, in one piece, uninjured. Thus, He showed the bread & drink to be symbolic. And He told them to do this in remembrance of Him, although He hadn't yet gone.

 

[utilyan]

The ultimate question is authority (and even with agreement here interpretation varies).

The authority for the RCC is the RCC (not Scripture). The authority for Protestants is, generally, Scripture. But then there is still the issue of interpretation.

For The Catholic church and everyone else (i doubt any object)--> God is the highest authority. Lets get that in common first.

God is not negated to only a miraculous wild card but is present in the heart of every christian.

In the Catholic church this is carefully outlined that You follow your good conscience in fact even obligated to follow your good coiscience against all odds of percieved "church" or anything, it is considered God's direct command on you. This is why Catholic saint may find themselves answering only to God and can even operate like a loose cannon.

No angels or demon is going to stop a christian following his good conscience, he is living on the very word of God.

God's presence is very real, his church is not abandoned, it is not a fairytale of God hiding or in vacation watching on.


Like the wizard of Oz hidden behind the curtain is the tradition and authority of protestants.
The authority of Protestants is still the tradition by which scripture is identified.

You will not accept the book of Mormon, or the writings of Ellen G White.

The holy Scripture simply did not fall out of the sky.

We share same new testament, most likely don't share old testament. Like we got a book called wisdom. Someone might state sure it was part of scripture but it is not inspired by the holy spirit, my entire focus to that statement is SAYS WHO? If I could repeat it 50 times SAYS WHO? SAYS WHO? SAYS WHO?

That is the REAL authority, it is NEVER going to be scripture. Even when in the new testament Jesus and apostles are quoting SEPTUAGINT version of old testament. If you wanted a scriptural authorized validation of other scripture, thats the very gospels themselves validating the Septuagint. Aside from needing a scholar or scribe to identify the gospel authentic itself.

 

[Alofa Atu]

For The Catholic church and everyone else (i doubt any object)--> God is the highest authority. Lets get that in common first.

Which "God" are you speaking about?

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Maybe the OP would like to kiss this image, afterall this system claims to 'represent' Jesus, Vicarius Christi. Perhaps the Romanists would like to do likewise.