Confusion in just the fifth commandment and implications

[Jayhawker Soule]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Early_Church_and_Christological_Councils

Read part 3

I'm sorry. I was asking for evidence, not claims.

What is your evidence that the RCC (or, for that matter, Paul/Luke) in any substantive way accurately represents the theology of the presumed Jesus sect?

 

[metis]

I'm sorry. I was asking for evidence, not claims.

What is your evidence that the RCC (or, for that matter, Paul/Luke) in any substantive way accurately represents the theology of the presumed Jesus sect?

Wikipedia is not a Catholic source, so, again, let me recommend you go read section 3.

BTW, I didn't say the RCC is the "Jesus sect" if you reread what I actually posted previously in #58.

 

[Deeje]

OK, to different points:

Firstly, metis, since you have a close connection to Roman Catholicism, (accompanying your wife to Mass every weekend) I completely understand your delicate position in defense to criticism of the church. An emotional connection is prone to cloud one's view IMO.

One is that the idea that Constantine "fused paganism and Christianity" to form Catholicism is totally absurd.

It might be helpful to understand Constantine's role in the formation of the Roman Catholic Church as well as why the church treats him as a hero.

"The accession of Constantine was a turning point for early Christianity. After his victory, Constantine took over the role of patron of the Christian faith. He supported the Church financially, had an extraordinary number of basilicas built, granted privileges (e.g., exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high-ranking offices, returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian,[16] and endowed the church with land and other wealth.[17] Between 324 and 330, Constantine built a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosporos, which would be named Constantinople for him. Unlike "old" Rome, the city began to employ overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls and had no pre-existing temples from other religions.[18]

In doing this, however, Constantine required those who had not converted to Christianity to pay for the new city.[17] Christian chroniclers tell that it appeared necessary to Constantine "to teach his subjects to give up their rites (...) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,"[19] This led to the closure of temples because of a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure;[20] Constantine did not need to use force to implement this.[17]"

"Eusebius of Caesarea and other Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine claimed the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (~in this sign, conquer!), often rendered in a Latin version, "in hoc signo vinces"(–in this sign, you will conquer). Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and thereafter they were victorious.[2][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

Since Jesus never advocated military or political participation for his followers, "conquering" under the sign of the cross was not a Christian teaching. You don't 'love your enemies' by killing them. (Matthew 5:43-45) Constantine apparently exhibited no regard for Christian conduct, but he was an astute politician who knew how to persuade his subjects in order to get them to accede to his agenda.

Second, Catholics worship God, not Zeus nor Godzilla.

There is no physical description of Jesus from the Bible and the Jews were commanded NOT to make images of "anything" that could be used to ensnare people into idolatry. (Exodus 20:4, 5)

Early images of Christ were therefore not only unreliable, but unlawful. How does anyone know that Jesus looked like this?

The Romans had many images of their gods, so it is no wonder that Jesus ended up resembling Zeus.

Jewish men did not have long hair, (1 Corinthians 11:14-15) so any image of Christ with hair like this is nothing close to what Jesus may have looked like.
Better to stick with the Bible's teaching and not make images in the first place.

Third, the early church had and has deep respect for Mary, which actually does show up in your Bible as well.

Respect is one thing....adoration is something else. Jesus never gave prominence to the role of his mother. In fact she is mentioned only with regard to certain events in Jesus' life, not as the object of veneration herself.

Images of Mary are also against God's law. Although the Catholic Church has images of Mary everywhere and no one can say that she is not venerated as a major part of Catholic worship, the idolatry cannot be denied.

Fourth, what Constantine may or may not have worshiped has nothing to do with what the RCC teaches.

Perhaps a little research will dispel that notion? Constantine's influence on church doctrine is undeniable.

Fifth, the issue of "light" versus "darkness" also shows up in your Bible, so are you saying that Paul, who penned such imagery, was a "pagan"? And your statement that Catholics worship the sun is so absolutely a pathetic falsehood that it is unbelievable you would write that nonsense.

"A rose by any other name", metis.

The light that Jesus represented was not his...it was his Father's glory that he promoted, not his own. (Philippians 2:11) He shone the light on God's word and illuminated the world with it. There were no halos around the heads of Jesus or the "saints". That is an incorporation of sun worship imagery, slipped in and disguised as Christianity so long ago, that it is just accepted without question.

Sixth, do you think most Jews back during Jesus time dressed like you're dressing today? The priestly robes mimic what actually was worn back then.

But don't you have to ask where they came from? If Jesus and his apostles were indistinguishable from their fellow Jews as far as their appearance was concerned, it stands to reason that they did not don fancy robes or funny hats to show off their position or to draw attention to themselves. Jesus said that the Pharisees exaggerated their garments so as to appear more righteous than the members of their flock. (Matthew 23:1-13)
Since there was no earthly priesthood in Christianity, (all references to a Christian priesthood in the NT were heavenly and future) there is no clothing that should distinguish a shepherd from his flock no matter what time period they lived in.

Listen Deeje, even though I am not Catholic, I attend mass almost every weekend with my Catholic wife, and since we've been married for 49 years now, I have literally been to thousands of masses. When I read what you wrote above, of I didn't know what you were referring to, I would not be able to even know which religion, let alone a denomination, you were talking about. All you are doing is regurgitating one piece of nonsense after another, and it's a shame that you are swallowing the lies and hatred that you are being taught.

Again, I understand how your connection with Catholicism is swayed by your loyalty to your wife. But loyalty to a wife was Adam's undoing. If you attend Mass, but in your heart are not a Christian, then isn't that just being a hypocrite...?

or do you see yourself as a diplomat?...just keeping the peace?

Ignoring the truth or pretending that the church's history didn't happen, is just denial. Jesus will judge all of us with the same judgment. Those who plead ignorance in this age of enlightenment will have no excuse for it.....sorry. The fact that you demonstrate religious confusion in how you have identified yourself over the years, shows me that you have not found your spiritual home. I wish you peace in this metis. We all need to find where we belong in the big scheme of things.

Here is coverage of basic Catholic beliefs from a non-Catholic source, namely Encyclopedia Britannica, so let me recommend that you actually read what Catholics believe versus what you're being told to believe what they believe: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism/Beliefs-and-practices

I have studied the Bible with many Catholic people over the years and their outrage is always the same when they research the truth for themselves. The church has had almost 2,000 years to cover its tracks and present itself as something it never was. I know firsthand what Catholic people believe and why they were persuaded to believe it. I have also had the privilege of being present when God has revealed the truth to many of them....it is life changing.
With the shackles removed, they feel free for the first time in their lives. (John 8:32)

 

[metis]

Firstly, metis, since you have a close connection to Roman Catholicism, (accompanying your wife to Mass every weekend) I completely understand your delicate position in defense to criticism of the church. An emotional connection is prone to cloud one's view IMO.



It might be helpful to understand Constantine's role in the formation of the Roman Catholic Church as well as why the church treats him as a hero.

"The accession of Constantine was a turning point for early Christianity. After his victory, Constantine took over the role of patron of the Christian faith. He supported the Church financially, had an extraordinary number of basilicas built, granted privileges (e.g., exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high-ranking offices, returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian,[16] and endowed the church with land and other wealth.[17] Between 324 and 330, Constantine built a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosporos, which would be named Constantinople for him. Unlike "old" Rome, the city began to employ overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls and had no pre-existing temples from other religions.[18]

In doing this, however, Constantine required those who had not converted to Christianity to pay for the new city.[17] Christian chroniclers tell that it appeared necessary to Constantine "to teach his subjects to give up their rites (...) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,"[19] This led to the closure of temples because of a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure;[20] Constantine did not need to use force to implement this.[17]"

"Eusebius of Caesarea and other Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine claimed the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα" (~in this sign, conquer!), often rendered in a Latin version, "in hoc signo vinces"(–in this sign, you will conquer). Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and thereafter they were victorious.[2][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity

Since Jesus never advocated military or political participation for his followers, "conquering" under the sign of the cross was not a Christian teaching. You don't 'love your enemies' by killing them. (Matthew 5:43-45) Constantine apparently exhibited no regard for Christian conduct, but he was an astute politician who knew how to persuade his subjects in order to get them to accede to his agenda.



There is no physical description of Jesus from the Bible and the Jews were commanded NOT to make images of "anything" that could be used to ensnare people into idolatry. (Exodus 20:4, 5)

Early images of Christ were therefore not only unreliable, but unlawful. How does anyone know that Jesus looked like this?

The Romans had many images of their gods, so it is no wonder that Jesus ended up resembling Zeus.

Jewish men did not have long hair, (1 Corinthians 11:14-15) so any image of Christ with hair like this is nothing close to what Jesus may have looked like.
Better to stick with the Bible's teaching and not make images in the first place.



Respect is one thing....adoration is something else. Jesus never gave prominence to the role of his mother. In fact she is mentioned only with regard to certain events in Jesus' life, not as the object of veneration herself.

Images of Mary are also against God's law. Although the Catholic Church has images of Mary everywhere and no one can say that she is not venerated as a major part of Catholic worship, the idolatry cannot be denied.

Perhaps a little research will dispel that notion? Constantine's influence on church doctrine is undeniable.



"A rose by any other name", metis.

The light that Jesus represented was not his...it was his Father's glory that he promoted, not his own. (Philippians 2:11) He shone the light on God's word and illuminated the world with it. There were no halos around the heads of Jesus or the "saints". That is an incorporation of sun worship imagery, slipped in and disguised as Christianity so long ago, that it is just accepted without question.



But don't you have to ask where they came from? If Jesus and his apostles were indistinguishable from their fellow Jews as far as their appearance was concerned, it stands to reason that they did not don fancy robes or funny hats to show off their position or to draw attention to themselves. Jesus said that the Pharisees exaggerated their garments so as to appear more righteous than the members of their flock. (Matthew 23:1-13)
Since there was no earthly priesthood in Christianity, (all references to a Christian priesthood in the NT were heavenly and future) there is no clothing that should distinguish a shepherd from his flock no matter what time period they lived in.



Again, I understand how your connection with Catholicism is swayed by your loyalty to your wife. But loyalty to a wife was Adam's undoing. If you attend Mass, but in your heart are not a Christian, then isn't that just being a hypocrite...?

or do you see yourself as a diplomat?...just keeping the peace?

Ignoring the truth or pretending that the church's history didn't happen, is just denial. Jesus will judge all of us with the same judgment. Those who plead ignorance in this age of enlightenment will have no excuse for it.....sorry. The fact that you demonstrate religious confusion in how you have identified yourself over the years, shows me that you have not found your spiritual home. I wish you peace in this metis. We all need to find where we belong in the big scheme of things.



I have studied the Bible with many Catholic people over the years and their outrage is always the same when they research the truth for themselves. The church has had almost 2,000 years to cover its tracks and present itself as something it never was. I know firsthand what Catholic people believe and why they were persuaded to believe it. I have also had the privilege of being present when God has revealed the truth to many of them....it is life changing.
With the shackles removed, they feel free for the first time in their lives. (John 8:32)

First of all, your opinion that my supposed "delicate position in defense to criticism of the church. An emotional connection is prone to cloud one's view IMO".is such a pathetic and completely illogical conclusion that you've drawn. Had you asked what I don't like and don't agree with in regards to the RCC, I'd probably be writing all night long to give you a complete answer. You should be ashamed of jumping to such an absurd conclusion without having the common decency of asking me first what I may not agree with the RCC on. If I seen angry about this, you're reading me right because responding to your lengthy rants is hard enough without having to fight imaginary strawmen that you've created. Since I am neither Catholic nor Christian, how in the heck did you come up with such a nonsensical conclusion, especially since there is hardly any Catholic dogma that I agree with!

Secondly, all the above is just an anti-Catholic smear campaign that goes way beyond what we were discussing. It's difficult enough for me to try and deal with your ignorance and bigotry about the church without having to read one anti-Catholic venting after another coming from you. IOW, stick to the subject that's being discussed!

And then you didn't even have the decency to comment or refute the encyclopedia article on the RCC that I linked you to. Did you even read it? What about the parts that show you how much you really don't understand about the RCC? Not even one comment or even a single refutation?!

Now, what I'm going to do next is go through what you posted point by point but in different posts, but I'll have to wait and do that tomorrow. Now will you stick to the subject being discussed or are you going to again resort to posting one piece of ignorance and bigotry after another after another after another..., Deeje?

 

[Deeje]

First of all, your opinion that my supposed "delicate position in defense to criticism of the church. An emotional connection is prone to cloud one's view IMO".is such a pathetic and completely illogical conclusion that you've drawn. Had you asked what I don't like and don't agree with in regards to the RCC, I'd probably be writing all night long to give you a complete answer. You should be ashamed of jumping to such an absurd conclusion without having the common decency of asking me first what I may not agree with the RCC on. If I seen angry about this, you're reading me right because responding to your lengthy rants is hard enough without having to fight imaginary strawmen that you've created. Since I am neither Catholic nor Christian, how in the heck did you come up with such a nonsensical conclusion, especially since there is hardly any Catholic dogma that I agree with!

I am genuinely sorry if I upset you metis, I was only relaying what is common knowledge about the Catholic Church's history. One only has to consult Wikipedia to see all of that for themselves. To disagree with the church so adamantly and yet still attend services and sit through that is an enigma to me. Why are you so wounded?
Since you are not a Catholic or a Christian, can I ask now why you would attend Mass with your wife? I did ask if it was diplomacy or to keep the peace? Is it something else? Please help me understand.....you actually brought it up with no explanation.

If my spouse chose to be of a different religion to myself, I would respect their choice, but I could never attend a service without feeling sick about it, like I was betraying God somehow, consorting with the enemy so to speak. I would consider myself a total hypocrite.

Secondly, all the above is just an anti-Catholic smear campaign that goes way beyond what we were discussing. It's difficult enough for me to try and deal with your ignorance and bigotry about the church without having to read one anti-Catholic venting after another coming from you. IOW, stick to the subject that's being discussed!

I was answering you....and the pics I posted were off Catholic websites.

If the truth is a smear campaign, then I am guilty.

And then you didn't even have the decency to comment or refute the encyclopedia article on the RCC that I linked you to. Did you even read it? What about the parts that show you how much you really don't understand about the RCC? Not even one comment or even a single refutation?!

Do you really want me to? There is just too much to address. Where would I start? Perhaps I will wait for your next posts and comment on the points you raise. I understand a lot about the Roman Catholic Church from people who were raised in it. Do they know more than I do about Catholicism? I hope so.
I have spoken to so many Catholic people in my ministry and they all tell the same story metis....it isn't one of knowledge as much as it is of performance. Is that all God wants from us?

Now, what I'm going to do next is go through what you posted point by point but in different posts, but I'll have to wait and do that tomorrow. Now will you stick to the subject being discussed or are you going to again resort to posting one piece of ignorance and bigotry after another after another after another..., Deeje?

Since ignorance is demonstrated by unsubstantiated ramblings, I must protest...nothing I said was unsubstantiated. Please tell me what I said that was untrue?

Bigotry is also based on a biased opinion, not on facts, so again, please tell me where my facts were wrong? I am not anti-Catholic as much as I am anti counterfeit Christianity.
Going by what Jesus said about the Pharisees, God hates hypocrites.... is it wrong to call the church out when they are clearly breaching God's laws, whilst claiming to be Christians?

 

[metis]

I am genuinely sorry if I upset you metis, I was only relaying what is common knowledge about the Catholic Church's history. One only has to consult Wikipedia to see all of that for themselves. To disagree with the church so adamantly and yet still attend services and sit through that is an enigma to me. Why are you so wounded?
Since you are not a Catholic or a Christian, can I ask now why you would attend Mass with your wife? I did ask if it was diplomacy or to keep the peace? Is it something else? Please help me understand.....you actually brought it up with no explanation.

If my spouse chose to be of a different religion to myself, I would respect their choice, but I could never attend a service without feeling sick about it, like I was betraying God somehow, consorting with the enemy so to speak. I would consider myself a total hypocrite.

I was answering you....and the pics I posted were off Catholic websites.

If the truth is a smear campaign, then I am guilty.



Do you really want me to? There is just too much to address. Where would I start? Perhaps I will wait for your next posts and comment on the points you raise. I understand a lot about the Roman Catholic Church from people who were raised in it. Do they know more than I do about Catholicism? I hope so.
I have spoken to so many Catholic people in my ministry and they all tell the same story metis....it isn't one of knowledge as much as it is of performance. Is that all God wants from us?



Since ignorance is demonstrated by unsubstantiated ramblings, I must protest...nothing I said was unsubstantiated. Please tell me what I said that was untrue?

Bigotry is also based on a biased opinion, not on facts, so again, please tell me where my facts were wrong? I am not anti-Catholic as much as I am anti counterfeit Christianity.
Going by what Jesus said about the Pharisees, God hates hypocrites.... is it wrong to call the church out when they are clearly breaching God's laws, whilst claiming to be Christians?

I'm only going to address the first part of why I attend mass with my wife, and then a bit later this morning I'll go through your previous post point by point.

First of all, I do accept your apology, so thanks.

I attend mass with my wife because we are family, and we never felt that disagreements should ever separate us. We've been married for 49 years, and I married an angel, let me tell ya.

At mass, I do not participate, but I actually often get a lot out of the service and sermons by sort of meditating on what's being said and taught. I have no problem listening to things that I don't necessarily agree with, and I've never taken the "my way or the highway"-approach to religious faith, or much of anything else for that matter. I don't have the belief that "my beliefs are right and all others are wrong", so I have no problem discussing such matters with people of any faith, including JW's.

Speaking of which, two families that lived near me, and one still does, were JW's, but both left the faith but not do to anything I said. The ones who used to live next store got fed up with the bigotry they were experiencing, but I don't know why the ones across the street from me left, nor is it any of my business, so I don't ask.

I don't know if you have ever read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts, but that should tell you that I really do not assume anything in this arena. As a scientist, now retired, I'm used to operating out of evidence and not some sort of blind belief about whatever. Because "I don't know", which you've probably seen me write a lot, I don't go around condemning religions or denominations.

Therefore, I've been in all sorts of churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples over the years, and I feel right at home in each of them. I doubt very much if you can even imagine how many different ones I've been in, both here and in various other countries. As an anthropologist, we study religion because it is considered one of the the "five basic institutions" that all societies have, whether they be officially recognized or not. I also have been involved in ecumenical activities for roughly 40 years now, attending both meetings and charity events involving other faiths and religions.

In closing this part, I feel "to each his own", but even that has a limit because judgmentalism and bigotry is morally pathetic, imo. If no one can actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God actually exists, then how can we accept all sorts of doctrines based on subjective religious texts written thousands of years ago written by people we don't know putting forth beliefs that we cannot verify in most cases? I can't, but I don't look down on people who do. My wife has a very strong faith, but I don't, and both of us accept each other's position.

In closing, that's why I can go with my wife to mass, and why she can go to synagogue with me, and neither of us has a problem using this approach. It may not be for everyone, but it works for us.

Later.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I am the Lord thy God and I have given you ten basic rules to live by - the fifth is to rest on the Sabbath and keep it holy - but my Bible and virtually every word in it is so vague and open to interpretation that you will have to make a best guess as to whether the Sabbath falls on a Saturday or a Sunday - or any of the other five actually - since Adam would have had to have kept a running total of sevens since the first sabbath and that of course would have had to have been faithfully kept by a descendent ever since - and I know of no such running total - if it were possible to determine the proper day of the week - then how EXACTLY would we go about HONORING it - and not to put too fine a point on it - what exactly does REST mean and how does it apply to firemen, police, and hospital workers - just to name a few. I think a few of you will think you have an exact answer to all these questions that arise in my mind over just a very few words (the fifth commandment) - I think many more - devout Christians and others as well - will not be able to answer these questions for themselves with any degree of certainty even after having read the fifth commandment - there are well over 700,000 words in the KJV of the Bible - If the Bible is the inspired word of God - the creator of the universe and all the life and complexity that that contains - why would his BEST EFFORT at conveying only one of the ten rules we are commanded to live by be so vague, contrary, and open to interpretation - Keep in mind that our ETERNAL salvation or damnation depends upon being able to guess the proper meaning of all 700,000+ words - not just the few given in the fifth commandment.

And what about the imperfection of our Gregorian calendar?
And what about the differences between lunar and solar calendars?
And what about the fact that time itself is a construct that we have to tweak every few generations?

We should do a series like this using every commandment...

 

[jonathan180iq]

You have not supported your claim that Saturday is not the seventh day. Again, look at a calendar.

Which calendar?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Please give any source that says the first day is any other than Sunday.

http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/days/

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/03/week-starts-sunday/

https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FNoStupidQuestions%252Fcomments%252F2abkt3%252F

 

[metis]

It might be helpful to understand Constantine's role in the formation of the Roman Catholic Church as well as why the church treats him as a hero.

The reality is that the RCC very much has mixed feelings about Constantine, and for good reasons. First, the down side.

One of the mistakes that the church is well aware of has been a strong tendency for the church to cozy up to some political leaders, thus often leading to a conflict of interest, thus too easy an opportunity for corruption. Does the church try and hide this fact? Not any more. There's a saying that goes "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", and this has been all too true throughout much of Catholic history. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind to history, Catholic or not. But let me just also say that corruption of one kind or another takes place in all religions and denominations, so the Catholics are certainly not alone on this.

On top of this, the church also now recognizes the oppression that has often been caused by cozying up to the powerful, and they don't deny this and have made significant changes along that line, albeit much later than it should have been done. The reason why they have a celibate clergy was to take away the fact that too many of the bishops were getting property and passing it on to their offspring, whereas about 1/3 of the land in western and central Europe was owned by the church one way or the other prior to the tenth century and even somewhat after that. Fortunately, that is no longer true.

Now the more positive side. The fact that you are a Christian probably can be attributed to Constantine in part. Contrary to popular belief, the 4th century church prior to Constantine was very small in numbers, scattered in various areas mostly, but not exclusively, in the Mediterranean area, and there was genuine fear that the church could literally disappear both due to outside forces and also many problems with disunity within. According to the noted Lutheran theologian, Martin Marty, he says that the church was in danger of getting wiped out at least three times in its early history.

With the church being very small and scattered, it offered no serious threat to the political powers in their respective communities and states, but the minute they began to grow in size then their threat became viewed as real, and the oppression to eliminate them also was real. Therefore, if the church had survived, it would have to remain very small and would not likely have spread very much at all. But when Constantine converted, this rapidly changed.

One problem in the early church in the early 4th century was that there was no canon, so different churches in different locations were using different letters, including a great many that are not part of the canon in your Bible today. Constantine ordered the bishops from these local churches to convene and decide for themselves which should be selected, and that process took decades and involved a lot of disagreement. How do we know this? Because the church documented some of this. The Bible that you are using didn't just float down from heaven but was argued and selected by the Catholic church you so much despise and hate.

Also under Constantine, this scattering of churches became much more organized, which was badly needed for the reasons above, plus the issues dealing with "heretical churches" with different leaders and different scriptures that were gaining strength. If all these groups had succeeded, Christianity would have been even a far greater hodge-podge than it is now. And didn't Paul say that the various churches needed to act as "one body", working together for unity, not division?

So, to finish this segment off, the church well recognizes both the pros and cons of what Constantine did, which I would suggest is actually the smart and honest approach to this. Making Constantine a hero or a villain both are nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

 

[metis]

There is no physical description of Jesus from the Bible and the Jews were commanded NOT to make images of "anything" that could be used to ensnare people into idolatry. (Exodus 20:4, 5)

Early images of Christ were therefore not only unreliable, but unlawful. How does anyone know that Jesus looked like this? Jewish men did not have long hair, (1 Corinthians 11:14-15) so any image of Christ with hair like this is nothing close to what Jesus may have looked like.

Do you have any pictures in your house like the ones you posted here? Is that not an "image", Deeje?

The reality is that there has been long debate and disagreement within Jewish circles as to what actually constitutes a "graven image"? But one thing is agreed upon, and that is that one must not worship anything that is not God, and Catholics agree.

As far as Jesus' image in concerned, it is true we have no idea what he looked like, but Jesus image, if made, is not to be worshiped either way in Catholic theology. But I have to laugh a bit about your hair comment because Jesus may have been a nazir, namely a man who commits himself to God to the point of subsistence living and a life of prayer with no alcohol and without cutting of the hair. John the Baptist may well have been a nazir going by the basic description of him.

BTW, the terminology "Jesus of Nazareth" hypothetically might have been misnamed whereas it might have read "Jesus the Nazir", although I do have my doubts about that for other reasons.

 

[metis]

Respect is one thing....adoration is something else. Jesus never gave prominence to the role of his mother. In fact she is mentioned only with regard to certain events in Jesus' life, not as the object of veneration herself.

False. What did Elizabeth say to Mary? What did Jesus tell John at the cross? Look them up if you don't remember. The fact of the matter is that Mary always was held in high esteem in the church, long prior to Constantine.

 

[metis]

There were no halos around the heads of Jesus or the "saints". That is an incorporation of sun worship imagery, slipped in and disguised as Christianity so long ago, that it is just accepted without question.

LOL! Do you know what the halos were for? Apparently to keep the pigeons from pooping on the statues. Well, it sorta stuck.
BTW, the vast majority of Christian statues, including at the Vatican, do not have halos.

 

[metis]

Since there was no earthly priesthood in Christianity, (all references to a Christian priesthood in the NT were heavenly and future) there is no clothing that should distinguish a shepherd from his flock no matter what time period they lived in.

There is literally nothing about what kind of clothing that the church leaders must or must not wear with the exception that men should not dress like women. It is bizarre that your Watchtower Society leaders tell you this lie-- and many others, btw.

There were twelve "apostles", Deeje, and they appointed others to succeed them, and they did have the power of binding and loosening of sins according to the "N.T." As it shows in Acts and some of the epistles, the Koine Greek word "episkopos" is used and is what the word "bishop" in English is derived from, and the Koine Greek word "presbuteros" is translated into English as "priest".

So, again you simply have blindly believed what the Watchtower Society has told you without checking them out for yourself.

 

[metis]

Those who plead ignorance in this age of enlightenment will have no excuse for it.....sorry. The fact that you demonstrate religious confusion in how you have identified yourself over the years, shows me that you have not found your spiritual home. I wish you peace in this metis.

You again have jumped to another insulting false conclusion based on nothing but your own narrow-mindedness. What I believe and which religious body I may attend on a weekend is none of your business!

Since I have a theology background that goes back over 50 years when taking some undergraduate courses in theology, so I find what you wrote above to be just so terribly pathetic. Anyone who really knows me is not going to say that I have "ignorance" in this area, and you should be ashamed of jumping to this form of judgementalism. Jesus said to "judge ye not", but it seems that you don't care what he says, Deeje.

I am truly fortunate to have a Catholic wife who is not judgmental, who doesn't badmouth other faiths, and I never hear anything condemning JW's or any other faith in her church. It seems that between you and she, it is she who is living out a true belief in Jesus' teachings of compassion and fairness towards others, minus judgementalism and arrogance.

Now, write what you want, as I'll give you the last word, but we're done on this-- at least I am. Maybe it's time for you to take stock on what you are doing and why you are doing what you are doing. Maybe actually do some studying instead of blindly swallowing what the Watchtower Society teaches you by using objective sources. And the maybe try and live out Micah 6:8:
He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

fini

 

[roger1440]

Now the more positive side. The fact that you are a Christian probably can be attributed to Constantine in part. Contrary to popular belief, the 4th century church prior to Constantine was very small in numbers, scattered in various areas mostly, but not exclusively, in the Mediterranean area, and there was genuine fear that the church could literally disappear both due to outside forces and also many problems with disunity within. According to the noted Lutheran theologian, Martin Marty, he says that the church was in danger of getting wiped out at least three times in its early history.

Why do you think Constantine legalized Christianity?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am the Lord thy God and I have given you ten basic rules to live by - the fifth is to rest on the Sabbath and keep it holy - but my Bible and virtually every word in it is so vague and open to interpretation that you will have to make a best guess as to whether the Sabbath falls on a Saturday or a Sunday - or any of the other five actually - since Adam would have had to have kept a running total of sevens since the first sabbath and that of course would have had to have been faithfully kept by a descendent ever since - and I know of no such running total - if it were possible to determine the proper day of the week - then how EXACTLY would we go about HONORING it - and not to put too fine a point on it - what exactly does REST mean and how does it apply to firemen, police, and hospital workers - just to name a few. I think a few of you will think you have an exact answer to all these questions that arise in my mind over just a very few words (the fifth commandment) - I think many more - devout Christians and others as well - will not be able to answer these questions for themselves with any degree of certainty even after having read the fifth commandment - there are well over 700,000 words in the KJV of the Bible - If the Bible is the inspired word of God - the creator of the universe and all the life and complexity that that contains - why would his BEST EFFORT at conveying only one of the ten rules we are commanded to live by be so vague, contrary, and open to interpretation - Keep in mind that our ETERNAL salvation or damnation depends upon being able to guess the proper meaning of all 700,000+ words - not just the few given in the fifth commandment.

There are 613 commandments, but since you mention the Decalogue here, know that only nine of the ten are repeated in the NT. The tenth is not repeated--the Shabbat command. The NT explains precisely how it is that some may honor the Sabbath should they choose to, it's not a sin to honor the Sabbath, but it's no sin to pass on honoring it, either.

 

[Deeje]

I'm only going to address the first part of why I attend mass with my wife, and then a bit later this morning I'll go through your previous post point by point.

First of all, I do accept your apology, so thanks.

I attend mass with my wife because we are family, and we never felt that disagreements should ever separate us. We've been married for 49 years, and I married an angel, let me tell ya.

At mass, I do not participate, but I actually often get a lot out of the service and sermons by sort of meditating on what's being said and taught. I have no problem listening to things that I don't necessarily agree with, and I've never taken the "my way or the highway"-approach to religious faith, or much of anything else for that matter. I don't have the belief that "my beliefs are right and all others are wrong", so I have no problem discussing such matters with people of any faith, including JW's.

Speaking of which, two families that lived near me, and one still does, were JW's, but both left the faith but not do to anything I said. The ones who used to live next store got fed up with the bigotry they were experiencing, but I don't know why the ones across the street from me left, nor is it any of my business, so I don't ask.

I don't know if you have ever read my signature statement at the bottom of my posts, but that should tell you that I really do not assume anything in this arena. As a scientist, now retired, I'm used to operating out of evidence and not some sort of blind belief about whatever. Because "I don't know", which you've probably seen me write a lot, I don't go around condemning religions or denominations.

Therefore, I've been in all sorts of churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples over the years, and I feel right at home in each of them. I doubt very much if you can even imagine how many different ones I've been in, both here and in various other countries. As an anthropologist, we study religion because it is considered one of the the "five basic institutions" that all societies have, whether they be officially recognized or not. I also have been involved in ecumenical activities for roughly 40 years now, attending both meetings and charity events involving other faiths and religions.

In closing this part, I feel "to each his own", but even that has a limit because judgmentalism and bigotry is morally pathetic, imo. If no one can actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God actually exists, then how can we accept all sorts of doctrines based on subjective religious texts written thousands of years ago written by people we don't know putting forth beliefs that we cannot verify in most cases? I can't, but I don't look down on people who do. My wife has a very strong faith, but I don't, and both of us accept each other's position.

In closing, that's why I can go with my wife to mass, and why she can go to synagogue with me, and neither of us has a problem using this approach. It may not be for everyone, but it works for us.

Later.

Thank you for the explanation.....you obviously have a very strong marriage and I commend you for it. Self sacrifice does make a difference in strengthening any relationship.

I have to say however, that I am confused by those who go through the motions of worship with no conviction.
Why attend if you do not participate?

What do you think it would take to convince you of God's existence metis? Do you think God as the Creator is there at all? What does creation tell you?....or do you think he some distant entity that has abandoned us to our own stupidity? Is he waiting for us to grow up?....learn some lessons?....enjoys our confusion and failure somehow? How do you see God.....or don't you see him at all? If you don't see him, why attend services for worship? Can you explain your position so that I can understand?

I know many people want answers to those questions but I also believe that God convicts those whose hearts are not soured by the way things are. They see past those things to the big picture. Do you have a big picture?

When Jesus said some things in symbol that shocked his audience when taken at face value, they stormed off muttering how disgusting his words were and refused to have anything to do with him. Jesus did not rush after them, but simply asked his apostles if they were going to leave too? That is when Peter said “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69)

Sometimes you have to wait for the explanation and let God's word be the "sayings of everlasting life". Isn't that what "faith is" (Hebrews 11:1)

Do you have faith in prayer at all?

 

[metis]

Why do you think Constantine legalized Christianity?

Hard to say because I obviously can't read his mind. Supposedly he had a vision that he could conquer under the Christian banner, and when he did as such he made Catholicism/Christianity the state religion even though he himself didn't covert until his death bed.

 

[metis]

Thank you for the explanation.....you obviously have a very strong marriage and I commend you for it. Self sacrifice does make a difference in strengthening any relationship.

I have to say however, that I am confused by those who go through the motions of worship with no conviction.
Why attend if you do not participate?

What do you think it would take to convince you of God's existence metis? Do you think God as the Creator is there at all? What does creation tell you?....or do you think he some distant entity that has abandoned us to our own stupidity? Is he waiting for us to grow up?....learn some lessons?....enjoys our confusion and failure somehow? How do you see God.....or don't you see him at all? If you don't see him, why attend services for worship? Can you explain your position so that I can understand?

I know many people want answers to those questions but I also believe that God convicts those whose hearts are not soured by the way things are. They see past those things to the big picture. Do you have a big picture?

When Jesus said some things in symbol that shocked his audience when taken at face value, they stormed off muttering how disgusting his words were and refused to have anything to do with him. Jesus did not rush after them, but simply asked his apostles if they were going to leave too? That is when Peter said “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69)

Sometimes you have to wait for the explanation and let God's word be the "sayings of everlasting life". Isn't that what "faith is" (Hebrews 11:1)

Do you have faith in prayer at all?

Against my better judgement, I will reverse what I said in my last post to you and respond.

First of all, this thread is not about me, so why have you in your last two posts made it about me instead of actually dealing with the things I wrote? But since you seem confused about my approach, I'll deal with your questions.

I don't "go through the motions of worship" because I don't worship. Since I already mentioned that in a previous post, the impression I get is that you are probably intent on demeaning me by getting a "dig" in as being some sort of hypocrite.

And I already explained why I attend, and I just recently mentioned to my wife that even if she were to pass away before me, I would probably still go to mass periodically. Without any explanation, she understood where I was coming from with that and why, but obviously you don't know me well enough to know why.

My approach to God has already been mentioned to you as I told you that you can read it in my signature statement. My "big picture" is more along the line of a scientific approach. If God made all, then all must in some way be a reflection of God, as Einstein also felt.

I have no faith in prayer per se since I don't think God, however perceived or not perceived, is going to change any world events because of me, plus there's no research that clearly indicates that prayer works. The exception is that if people know others are praying for them, there actually is some evidence to indicate that this can help-- "mind over matter" probably, but who knows for sure.

Finally, if having some politically-correct belief about Jesus is what supposedly "saves" one so as they can the go to heaven, I find that to be just so bizarre. Just because one says "I believe..." means nothing if one doesn't act on their belief in a moral manner of compassion and justice/fairness to all, imo. IOW, it's just "cymbals clashing". And I would much rather associate with a moral atheist than an immoral Christian (or Jew, or Buddhist, or...).