Face of Jesus

[ProfLogic]

According to DOCTRINE they do not worship statues. You don't get it do you?

What is written is not what the worshippers always follow? I asked you the same as james the persian.... Is molestation allowed, but do you see this in some churches?

 

[Bishka]

What is written is not what the worshippers always follow? I asked you the same as james the persian.... Is molestation allowed, but do you see this in some churches?

This hasn't do to with it.

Leave the molestation remarks for another thread ProfLogic.

That doens't even make logical sense.

:no::areyoucra

 

[Quiddity]

What is written is not what the worshippers always follow? I asked you the same as james the persian.... Is molestation allowed, but do you see this in some churches?

Why would this matter again?
The number of things Catholics do is endless. How that has diddly squat to do with Church doctrine is beyond me.

 

[ProfLogic]

Apparenlty image is extremley important to you and everything has to be visual.

It wasn't important to the believers then or now. It wouldn't and won't change their faith whether Jesus is black, white, green or yellow.

You are just arguing against yourself.

Well let me see, people argue that jesus was a man of color but the traditional depiction is white... if its not important why continue having images of christ in this fashion?

 

[ProfLogic]

Why would this matter again?
The number of things Catholics do is endless. How that has diddly squat to do with Church doctrine is beyond me.

the point is some worshippers can see things as they please... that is why I used in my sample cathloics because they admitted this to me... in this forum spacemonkey also had the experience but becky says they don't....maybe the right words would have been they are not suppose to..

 

[Quiddity]

Well let me see, people argue that jesus was a man of color but the traditional depiction is white... if its not important why continue having images of christ in this fashion?

*drumroll*
Because it's not important.....:biglaugh:

 

[Quiddity]

the point is some worshippers can see things as they please... that is why I used in my sample cathloics because they admitted this to me... in this forum spacemonkey also had the experience but becky says they don't....maybe the right words would have been they are not suppose to..

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[Neale]

...The shroud that was arounf christ would have been one of the things that you coul dhave gotten an image on.

That's a matter of faith. I can't objectifiably deny or support that.

it was less than 300 years, someone from the believers would have gottena clear image of the christ since he was deemed as an important person, he was calimed to be the son of god after his crucifixion

Since people didn't live 300 years, that's irrelevant. Christianity, from what I've read, wasn't a whiz-bang widespread, instant operation. After Christ died, he wasn't IMMEDIATLY widely accepted as the Son of God. The state religion was still in mass operation, as was various mystery cults. Royally comissioned Roman artisans wouldn't have bothered with some "new cult" happening in Asia Minor. When it finally spread and "got big," it is only logical to assume that no one had an accurate physical representation of Jesus.

Take Elvis for example. There are numerous books which contain Elvis' personal recipe for fried chicken. No two recipes are the same, but are strikingly similar (minor ingrediant omissions+additions). In less than fifty years, we still have people who are alive from Elvis' time, and yet the recipes still differ!

p.s. to Christians: I'm not directly equating Jesus with fried chicken.

 

[logician]

"it is only logical to assume that no one had an accurate physical representation of Jesus.
'

A more plausible alternative is that the man never existed, thus nobody could know what he looked like.

Check out http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

 

[Genna]

"it is only logical to assume that no one had an accurate physical representation of Jesus.
'

A more plausible alternative is that the man never existed, thus nobody could know what he looked like.

Check out http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Any body can google and find whatever information appeals to their belief
Like, I just googled my way to a link that says that Jesus did exist.

Jesus did exist

how you like that?

 

[James the Persian]

Woah why do attack space monkey's experience and what he extracted from it? That is the problem with religion, if others have their own experience and opinion then they are poorly taught, did not understand evil...etc.

I never made an attack on anyone and nor did I call him/her evil. What I did say was that he/she was badly catechised. This is self-evidently true. If the teaching of the Church is one thing but the individual believes something completely contrary, and not just believes it personally but believes that it is indeed the teaching of the Church, then they have not been taught (catechised) well. This is the fault of the catechist, not the individual.

As I said the bible was compiled 300 years after the last claimed author by a selected group of individuals who purposely selected the books as they see it fit.

Look, don't try to tell me about the formation of the canon. Your knowledge is clearly poor at best and this statement is completely false. More to the point, though, the comment is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of catechism.

Now back to your point about the church's rules...molestation is prohibited in churches but do you think they do not happen?

No, but the molesters know that it is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Have you ever come across one that would say, 'Hey, the Church teaches that this is right'? Until you do, you have no valid comparison with the issue of an ex-RC who believes the RCC teaches people to worship statues. The ex-RC is wrong and your point on molestation is completely off target.

James

 

[spacemonkey]

I never made an attack on anyone and nor did I call him/her evil. What I did say was that he/she was badly catechised. This is self-evidently true. If the teaching of the Church is one thing but the individual believes something completely contrary, and not just believes it personally but believes that it is indeed the teaching of the Church, then they have not been taught (catechised) well. This is the fault of the catechist, not the individual.



James

If you go back and read my post, you would see I was talking about conclusions I drew based on my own observations, regardless of what they were "teaching" (I went to Catholic scool for several years). Even if all of the staues, crucifixes(?), and relics isn't meant to be idolatry dosn't mean that it doesn't take place. Take Central and South America for instance, where the most RC's just happen to live, you can't convince me that the festival involving the statue of Christ the Redemer isn't a form of idolatry.

As for the familar caucasian image of Jesus, it was popularized by Renissance artists who were working for the only ones who could afford art at that time, the Church and christan nobility. As the artists were working for European kings and bishops, who didn't want to see a Jesus of color, the artist adapted pagan images of Zeus/Jupiter/Sol Invictus.

 

[logician]

"Any body can google and find whatever information appeals to their belief"

Quite true, but please come up with convincing proof that the biblical Jesus did exist.

 

[ProfLogic]

Look, don't try to tell me about the formation of the canon. Your knowledge is clearly poor at best and this statement is completely false. More to the point, though, the comment is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of catechism.
James

So go ahead and enlightened me on the history of the bible... maybe you know ancient hebrew and have access to all the scriptures written by the ancient hebrews or even maybe you are one of the original authors of the scriptures which they turned into the bible.. The document origin of the compiled that I know that is factual, the bible as people have them today.. Where is your proof that you know anything about the original scriptures and all of your self proclaimed gods words? Do you have any at least mine was about the compile bible which was created in the 3rd century.... and translated by a King...... the version that a lot of believers have in their possesion.... The truth is no one knows how the words of the self proclaimed god was given, thus even other religions based on the bible itself decided to created their own... The compiled bible came from a group of monks who compiled it as they saw it fit.. in their era.... I would want to hear the facts that you have since you must be the most knowlegeable person in the world about the the bible origins....

No, but the molesters know that it is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Have you ever come across one that would say, 'Hey, the Church teaches that this is right'? Until you do, you have no valid comparison with the issue of an ex-RC who believes the RCC teaches people to worship statues. The ex-RC is wrong and your point on molestation is completely off target.
James

Here's the point..... some pastors, priest, etc of religions molest.....did they get trained to molest... as you said no but these people have accesss to their parishsioners and can teach whatever they want..... Are there that would suggest to pray to a statue or image besides the claimed self procalimed god... of course......every one who is in any religion is just human....leaders or followers.

 

[James the Persian]

So go ahead and enlightened me on the history of the bible... maybe you know ancient hebrew and have access to all the scriptures written by the ancient hebrews or even maybe you are one of the original authors of the scriptures which they turned into the bible.. The document origin of the compiled that I know that is factual, the bible as people have them today.. Where is your proof that you know anything about the original scriptures and all of your self proclaimed gods words? Do you have any at least mine was about the compile bible which was created in the 3rd century.... and translated by a King...... the version that a lot of believers have in their possesion.... The truth is no one knows how the words of the self proclaimed god was given, thus even other religions based on the bible itself decided to created their own... The compiled bible came from a group of monks who compiled it as they saw it fit.. in their era.... I would want to hear the facts that you have since you must be the most knowlegeable person in the world about the the bible origins....

Do stop blathering. It's clear that you know next to nothing about the formation of the canon and I said nothing of Hebrew whatsoever. I'm Christian, not Jewish. Nor did I speak of the writing of the books but the collection of them - that's what the formation of the canon means.

The compilation of the canon did not come from a group of monks at all. The Old Testament canon is inherited from the Septuagint, which was compiled by Jews at Alexandria between about 300 and 100 BC. The New Testament canon was likewise compiled by a long process involving many individuals and councils between the 2nd and 5th centuries AD. Most of the canon is already agreed on very early, but the first complete list isn't seen in the opinions of any Father or council until much, much later. Unless you are going to posit a group of monks who lived for several hundred years and could simultaneously be in more than one place, then your conspiracy theory is completely unworkable.

And as for King James (and his version has no weight whatsoever with me), he didn't translate anything - not one word. His name is on the translation because he patronised it, not because he created it. You really should learn to shut your mouth if you aren't sure of your facts. This sort of historical naivetee passed off as knowledge, especially combined with your pontificating attitude, simply makes you look foolish.

James

 

[logician]

"And if some believe Jesus to be GOD, wouldn't making a portrait of him going against the 1st commandment, making a God in your image?"

It does seem odd that god would look like a homo sapiens.

 

[ProfLogic]

Do stop blathering. It's clear that you know next to nothing about the formation of the canon and I said nothing of Hebrew whatsoever. I'm Christian, not Jewish. Nor did I speak of the writing of the books but the collection of them - that's what the formation of the canon means.

The compilation of the canon did not come from a group of monks at all. The Old Testament canon is inherited from the Septuagint, which was compiled by Jews at Alexandria between about 300 and 100 BC. The New Testament canon was likewise compiled by a long process involving many individuals and councils between the 2nd and 5th centuries AD. Most of the canon is already agreed on very early, but the first complete list isn't seen in the opinions of any Father or council until much, much later. Unless you are going to posit a group of monks who lived for several hundred years and could simultaneously be in more than one place, then your conspiracy theory is completely unworkable.

And as for King James (and his version has no weight whatsoever with me), he didn't translate anything - not one word. His name is on the translation because he patronised it, not because he created it. You really should learn to shut your mouth if you aren't sure of your facts. This sort of historical naivetee passed off as knowledge, especially combined with your pontificating attitude, simply makes you look foolish.

James

First of all where did I say king james translated it by himslef.. didn't I say a selected few? The point was no one knows the bible, how to really translate it because it came from only a selected few... If you have access to all of the ancient hebrew scriptures and the authors themselves maybe you can consider yourself as an expert.. otherwise you are just like everyone else..... relies on what others had written for you. Did you actually come across an awareness or everything you know was written by someone else. I believe your suggestion to me realy pertains to you... It is so easy to repeat what you read.. it is better if you experience it.... Your arrogance is your downfall.....

 

[ProfLogic]

"And if some believe Jesus to be GOD, wouldn't making a portrait of him going against the 1st commandment, making a God in your image?"

It does seem odd that god would look like a homo sapiens.

A male homo sapien to boot......Women were not created in its image as the story of genisis explained... women came from a part of adam... his ribs.....I am pretty sure the differences in man and women's anatomy still holds as we see today. Does this mean women are not created in gods image only men?

 

[Bishka]

A male homo sapien to boot......Women were not created in its image as the story of genisis explained... women came from a part of adam... his ribs.....I am pretty sure the differences in man and women's anatomy still holds as we see today. Does this mean women are not created in gods image only men?

Apparently you are only attacking 'mainstream' Christians on this one.

You keep forgetting that some LDS people believe in the wife of God.

 

[Bishka]

It does seem odd that god would look like a homo sapiens.

Or how about the men and women look like God? Is that so hard to grasp?