# Jesus: faith vs works

## Recommended Posts

Once the law was repealed and sin was no longer imputed, the expansion of sin dropped. Those, who ignored the law and lived by their own faith never broke stride nor got suck into the sin of self righteousness. \

Unlike prohibition, the Law was not repealed.

• Replies 104
• Created

#### Popular Days

When Christ died on the cross, the law was nailed to the cross. It was the caretakers of the law that killed him.

There is simple logic that explains this. If you look at a law, it has two aspects; the good side and the evil side of the law. Thou shall not kill, requires understanding what is meant by killing to help one avoid the pitfalls of this sin. Learning this law also requires learning what is considered the preferred path, when so confronted. This double sided data is stored in the brain as two memory consolidations; God and Devil.

Satan is equated with all the dark sides of the laws; killing, torture, cheating, etc. This is what one expects to see in hell. While God or Jesus is associated with all the good sides of all the laws. This is what one expects to see in heaven. The two realms or brain organizations are separated and act independently; like heaven and hell. Each law you learn, helps fills in each of these two independent data grids.

A person might satisfy all the good aspects of the law, on the surface, so others can see. But he can have a dark inside, such as those who would condemn and killed an innocent Jesus. The preacher may try to be perfect but will also feel temptation. He has to pray against the Satan consolidation of law.

The opposite can also be true, sometimes those who appear dark on the surface, by not following all the works of the laws are reflected by a good inside. Mary Magellan may have been dark on the surface being a "ho", but she had a golden heart. Jesus preferred the sinners, because their inside was open to him. He could reach them subliminally, and he use that to change their outside. The self righteous were good to the eyes, but had a dark inside that tried to tempt him and when that didn't worked tried to kill him.

With faith, there is no law and therefore no good and evil to store in the dual grid "There is no longer yes and no, just yes in him.

##### Share on other sites

When Christ died on the cross, the law was nailed to the cross. It was the caretakers of the law that killed him.

False. Jesus EXPLICITLY said that the Law is to be followed to the letter until He fulfills it at the second coming. Read the passages in the OP.

##### Share on other sites

Peter, who was there. How about the people who quoted Jesus(portions of which I quoted above)?

Yes, but a Protestant could quote Jesus from John (eg 3:16) just as meaningfully as a Catholic could quote him from Matthew. Very well informed and respected theologians have debated the topic for a very long time. I don't think Jesus' opinion is so easily and decisively proven.

##### Share on other sites

It doesn't specifically say a symbol of God, just a symbol of anything in Heaven.

Including God.

Now, the NRSV states "You shall not make for yourself an idol" rather than a graven image. According to the OED, in Jewish and Christian use, idol means

...

Now, other translations I find say "graven image" or even say "likeness", so I gather the meaning is not quite certain. One could take the passage (as a whole) to mean either "don't make idols to worship, just worship me" or "don't make images of anything, and only worship me".

The hebrew words are "Pessel" which literally means "statue" and "graven images" (IE, 'relief artwork' counts too) and the word "Tmuna" which literally means 'Picture' or drawing.

I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?

Regardless of which you think is right, one can easily see that Christians would jump for the first version, and I can't blame them. When I get home I can check my NIV Study Bible to see what the evangelicals think about it.

You know quite well that I don't follow the bible, or that I think it's "right". What I am saying is that if someone claims to follow a text, then they need to *follow it*.

Christians claim it's one of the most important orders from god - the TEN COMMANDMENTS (music, please!) and yet, they *disregard* two. Knowingly.

They might make excuses for this, which is fine theologically, but then why claim they follow the ten commandments? Just admit that the ten commandments are - as Christians seem to claim about other books in the "old" testament - outdated. That they were replaced. Tweaked. Whatever. But then, don't claim to follow them. Don't insist that they are the pillar of your belief.

Obviously, they are not, if they aren't following them.

(you in a general sense, not you- you).

By the way. We're discussing the commandment about the graven images and God, but you're also forgetting the commandment about the Sabbath, which Christians neglect to follow as well. The sabbath isn't just a 'directive' from God like Kosher food is. It's *IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS*. It's considered even *MORE* important. Christians don't follow it.

I don't care what people follow. I care that they at least not pretend to be consistent when they're not. Either they follow the 10 commandments, or they are not.

~moo

##### Share on other sites

Paul and Peter had completely different views regarding whether the Law should be follow. One based their views on what Jesus said, and the other didn't. Guess who quoted Jesus.

For the confrontation Paul described see Galations 2:11-17. However, I'll type out some passages from texts you probably don't have to give you a fuller sense of their relationship.

"For some among the gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations on many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the Law...But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlating continuance. For He said, 'The heavens and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law.'"-Letter of Peter to James 2:3-5

"And if our Jesus appeared to you and became known in a vision and met you as angry and an enemy, yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?...But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles, and do not contend with me, whoa m his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church."-Peter(Clementine Homilies 17:19)

It is clear that Paul(even through his own writings) thinks the Law need not be followed. However, it is also clear that Jesus said the exact opposite.

Kudos to you for understanding Paul's actual viewpoint. Most people assume that in his Galation's letter that he was throwing the law away (He actually was condemning them for practicing circumcision on fully grown men.)

I'm sorry to tell you that Christ wasn't here to do away with the law. He came to magnify it.

He said:

(Mat 5:17 MKJV) Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.

(Mat 5:18 MKJV) For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

(Mat 5:19 MKJV) Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

(Mat 5:20 MKJV) For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

I did a word study on the word 'law' that is used.

What I found was the word is 'nomos' which is used through the idea of prescriptive usage, generally regulation, but specifically referring to Moses and more figuratively a physical principal.

Although God gave Moses the new covenant commandments, statutes and laws on Mount Sinai, Abraham had been following these same laws long before.

(Rom 8:4 MKJV) so that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Here also refers to putting away the physical practice of atonement for sin. Christ through his new covenant was the ultimate sacrifice and made the all other sacrifices were meaningless after this. See Paul's letters on this.

(Eph 2:15 MKJV) having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;

(Eph 2:16 MKJV) and so that He might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself.

Can you identify what scriptures made you think that Christ put the law away?

cheers

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
When Christ died on the cross, the law was nailed to the cross. It was the caretakers of the law that killed him.

There is simple logic that explains this. If you look at a law, it has two aspects; the good side and the evil side of the law. Thou shall not kill, requires understanding what is meant by killing to help one avoid the pitfalls of this sin. Learning this law also requires learning what is considered the preferred path, when so confronted. This double sided data is stored in the brain as two memory consolidations; God and Devil.

Satan is equated with all the dark sides of the laws; killing, torture, cheating, etc. This is what one expects to see in hell. While God or Jesus is associated with all the good sides of all the laws. This is what one expects to see in heaven. The two realms or brain organizations are separated and act independently; like heaven and hell. Each law you learn, helps fills in each of these two independent data grids.

A person might satisfy all the good aspects of the law, on the surface, so others can see. But he can have a dark inside, such as those who would condemn and killed an innocent Jesus. The preacher may try to be perfect but will also feel temptation. He has to pray against the Satan consolidation of law.

The opposite can also be true, sometimes those who appear dark on the surface, by not following all the works of the laws are reflected by a good inside. Mary Magellan may have been dark on the surface being a "ho", but she had a golden heart. Jesus preferred the sinners, because their inside was open to him. He could reach them subliminally, and he use that to change their outside. The self righteous were good to the eyes, but had a dark inside that tried to tempt him and when that didn't worked tried to kill him.

With faith, there is no law and therefore no good and evil to store in the dual grid "There is no longer yes and no, just yes in him.

He did not nail the law to the cross. He nailed our sins to the cross.

The law is only evil when men add unto it. The Pharisees were doing this to burden down the people and make themselves appear righteous. They were the ones who originated the things like you weren't allowed to spit on the ground on the Sabbath because it was plowing the dirt and might be work!

Christ came at his father's will to do a job. He came bearing a sword: that sword was the word and the law.

Yes certain aspects of the law were changed, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

An old testament principle was when you were building a house you would build a barrier around the upstairs opening so that people would not fall out. You would then be responsible for their blood.

Do you think Christ would abolish this practice? No! He wouldn't, that would stupidity.

Mat 19:16 And behold, one came and said to Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?

Mat 19:17 And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mat 19:18 He said to Him, Which? Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness,

Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Mat 19:20 The young man said to Him, I have kept all these things from my youth up; what do I lack yet?

Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me.

Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

Mat 19:23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, Truly I say to you that a rich man will with great difficulty enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Mat 19:24 And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mat 19:25 When His disciples heard, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked on them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

Mat 19:27 Then answering Peter said to Him, Behold, we have forsaken all and have followed You. Therefore what shall we have?

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This young man was a Jew. He had been all his life. Do you think he ignored the law? No he did not! He says quite plainly that he had done these things all this life.

Christ wants more than just the law though. He wants to write it on our hearts and minds.

cheers

##### Share on other sites

Christ didnt nail anything to the cross.

The romans nailed jesus to it, cause the romans used to nail all those who deserved punishment, to die on it, long before even Jesus suposedly existed.

If he was to die under the romans, it was very likely that it was going to be by crucification.

(Anyhow, this is completely off-topic, sorry )

##### Share on other sites

Including God.

The transcendent model (and St. Anselm in particular) would hold that God has no image, body, or representation (as he's not part of this universe), and there can thus be no image of God for practical reasons.

The hebrew words are "Pessel" which literally means "statue" and "graven images" (IE, 'relief artwork' counts too) and the word "Tmuna" which literally means 'Picture' or drawing.

I think that pretty much covers it, don't you?

Yeah, although I don't know much about ancient Hebrew. It'd be nice if I could ask the translators.

Christians claim it's one of the most important orders from god - the TEN COMMANDMENTS (music, please!) and yet, they *disregard* two. Knowingly.

They might make excuses for this, which is fine theologically, but then why claim they follow the ten commandments? Just admit that the ten commandments are - as Christians seem to claim about other books in the "old" testament - outdated. That they were replaced. Tweaked. Whatever. But then, don't claim to follow them. Don't insist that they are the pillar of your belief.

And when you ask them "what about all the rules in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? You know, menstruating women are unclean and anything they touch must be washed, and all that," they say, "Ah, but we Christians don't have to follow the Jewish law!"

By the way. We're discussing the commandment about the graven images and God, but you're also forgetting the commandment about the Sabbath, which Christians neglect to follow as well. The sabbath isn't just a 'directive' from God like Kosher food is. It's *IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS*. It's considered even *MORE* important. Christians don't follow it.

I'd think that any directive is fairly important if God speaks it...

I wonder if any of the famous theologians have weighed in on this. I have Anselm's Proslogion here and I might see if he has something to say about the Old Testament and Jewish law.

##### Share on other sites

The transcendent model (and St. Anselm in particular) would hold that God has no image, body, or representation (as he's not part of this universe), and there can thus be no image of God for practical reasons.

Oh come on, Cap'n.

Scenario: I create a lump of plastic. Does it have meaning? Not unless I give it meaning. If I say it's a symbol of my undying love to unrecyclable materials, then no one would even think to make a connection with religion, the rules of god, or the ten commandments.

If I say this lump of plastic is a representation of my undying love to God, then it's a symbol.

The ten commandments forbit *BOTH CASES*.

The go further than just forbidding something that's obviously a representation of god (like my second-case lump of plastic, or like a picture of angels, or statues of jesus, or a cross) they forbid *ALL*, so that you don't even get confused or tricked or *accidentally* do something that leads you to worship - even unintentionally -- or LOOK like you worship -- even accidentally -- a graven image, a statue or a symbol.

The heaven above and the Earth below, in biblical times, means *EVERYTHING*. There is, according to the biblical depiction of the universe, nothing other than the heaven above and the earth below. There's no hell under the Earth.

The rule is very clear, unless people insist on butchering the living hell out of it for the sake of (maybe) coming up with ways to have graven images while pretending to follow the 10 rules of God.

Another point here - The "old" testament has more than 613 rules. Most Christian sects claim that Jesus renewed the old laws (or most of them) which is why they have no problems eating pork, among other things, or wearing cloths with linen and cotton mixed ("שעתנז"), seeing as they're both rules that are explained in the bible in depth.

If Christians want so desperately to have a list of laws that 'stayed' from the "old" testament, they have 613 laws to pick from that I bet they can actually find to ACTUALLY follow 10 of them. Somewhere. Pick 'em.

Yeah, although I don't know much about ancient Hebrew. It'd be nice if I could ask the translators.

There are a few main reasons why translating the old testament is very difficult without pre-interpreting it: First, the ancient language is using words that have double and sometimes triple meanings; the way to understand those meanings is subtle by the context they appear in and by the context they appear in other chapters. Second, the bible in general is written in a symbolic manner - things depend on context and stories depend on very broad descriptions and subtle distinctions.

Translations are - USUALLY - pre-interpreted. I am so used to being able to read it that I've never really gave much thought to how to try and approach it from a point of view of someone who can't understand the original. I guess what I would recommend is cross-referencing as many translations as possible, trying to bring from as varying 'groups' as possible.

I can say that the site I bring from (Mechon Mamre) is not too shabby in translating the words (I always go over both the english and hebrew when I quote there), but even there it's not perfect. Any translation is hard (even modern ones) but ancient ones - specially a symbolic one like the bible - is double-hard.

And when you ask them "what about all the rules in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? You know, menstruating women are unclean and anything they touch must be washed, and all that," they say, "Ah, but we Christians don't have to follow the Jewish law!"

Yes, but at *LEAST* saying that is semi consistent. At least they say that these rules were 'turned off' when Jesus died on the cross (and I don't know much about what jesus said or didn't say.. seeing what ydoaPs is saying, that doesn't seem to be the case either). At least, though, the claim that the rules have been 'updated' is consistent; you don't have to follow the 613 rules of the old testament because they're the "old" rules.

If you CLAIM to follow the 613 and don't follow them (like many a-religious jews, who claim to do all 613 and neglect to remember there are some ridiculous laws they aren't doing in modern times) you are inconsistent.

If you don't claim to follow all of them, there's no problem of consistency.

If you CLAIM to follow the 10 commandments and don't follow them, you're inconsistent.

I'd think that any directive is fairly important if God speaks it...

I wonder if any of the famous theologians have weighed in on this. I have Anselm's Proslogion here and I might see if he has something to say about the Old Testament and Jewish law.

Yeah that's not the case with all the laws, btw. Most laws come through prophets, and while they're important, the reason why the 10 commandments are considered *THE MOST* important in the bible is because they were *given* to Moses by god, directly.

But yeah I'd like to see what they say. I can ask religious jews, but their answer will (obviously) be VERY different than any Christianity-leaning theologians.

~moo

##### Share on other sites

Why because Mary is in heaven with God?

"John 3:13 And no one has ascended up to Heaven except He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven."

I have it completely wrong then?

One of the many roots of the practice lies in the book of Kings in which Solomon, in keeping with the commandment "Honor thy Father and Mother", allows the intercession by his mother on behalf of others.

"... then the king sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, 'I have one small request to make of you, do not refuse me.' And the king said to her, 'Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.'" [1 Kings. 2:19-20]

Likewise, Catholics don't consider the souls of the dead any differently than they do the souls of the living. They therefor do not consider Mary or any Saint as having ascended to Heaven anymore than they consider you or I having ascended. Therefor, asking Mary to pray on their behalf is no different than asking you or I to pray for them. They just believe Mary has an inside track.

From the Song of Mary:

"46 And Mary said: My soul magnifies the Lord,

47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;

For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

Catholics tend to agree with Mary's statement above... as does God, who chose Mary for the same reason.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
In the ten commandments, the text is clear. You are to avoid even having a picture of anyone, related or unrelated to god, as a source of - or conduit to - worship. On top of that come the graven image and the symbol to represent God.

You aren't supposed to even have a SYMBOLIC representation of God.

Relgious jews don't have posters of their favorite actors, for instance. The might have posters of scenery, or nature, but not of people. The commandment, once read without pre-interpreted-translation, is quite clear.

You are missing the very definition of "idol" in your assertion, which is the graphical representation of a deity to which a person prays. You will note, however, that the Catholic Church does not pray to images or Gods, nor assert the deification of those whose images they do request prayers from.

As such, they do not create nor to they pray to idols.

##### Share on other sites

You are missing the very definition of "idol" in your assertion, which is the graphical representation of a deity to which a person prays. You will note, however, that the Catholic Church does not pray to images or Gods, nor assert the deification of those whose images they do request prayers from.

As such, they do not create nor to they pray to idols.

Read the other posts, jryan. Idol is the english translation. The aramaic/hebrew is clear in saying no picture, symbol, statue or relief image of *anything*. Regardless of praying, you are not to have them. *THEN* it continues to say that you can't pray to them either.

Quite clear.

##### Share on other sites

The ten commandments forbit *BOTH CASES*.

The go further than just forbidding something that's obviously a representation of god (like my second-case lump of plastic, or like a picture of angels, or statues of jesus, or a cross) they forbid *ALL*, so that you don't even get confused or tricked or *accidentally* do something that leads you to worship - even unintentionally -- or LOOK like you worship -- even accidentally -- a graven image, a statue or a symbol.

The heaven above and the Earth below, in biblical times, means *EVERYTHING*. There is, according to the biblical depiction of the universe, nothing other than the heaven above and the earth below. There's no hell under the Earth.

The rule is very clear, unless people insist on butchering the living hell out of it for the sake of (maybe) coming up with ways to have graven images while pretending to follow the 10 rules of God.

~moo

If these would be the case, then the same ten commandments written on stone by God himself, would be a symbol that doesnt deserve worship.

Remember that after Moses, destroyed them, the pieces were kept in an arch, which was kept as a symbol of god himself.

And this goes the same, for jews, catholics or christians.

Edited by Rickdog
(missing words in the post)
##### Share on other sites

If these would be the case, then the same ten commandments written on stone by God himself, would a symbol that doesnt deserve worship.

Remember that after Moses, destroyed them, the pieces were kept in an arch, which was kept as a symbol of god himself.

And this goes the same, for jews, catholics or christians.

Agreed, all religions have inconsistencies. Jews are no exception, not at all.

##### Share on other sites

One of the many roots of the practice lies in the book of Kings in which Solomon, in keeping with the commandment "Honor thy Father and Mother", allows the intercession by his mother on behalf of others.

"... then the king sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, 'I have one small request to make of you, do not refuse me.' And the king said to her, 'Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.'" [1 Kings. 2:19-20]

Likewise, Catholics don't consider the souls of the dead any differently than they do the souls of the living. They therefor do not consider Mary or any Saint as having ascended to Heaven anymore than they consider you or I having ascended. Therefor, asking Mary to pray on their behalf is no different than asking you or I to pray for them. They just believe Mary has an inside track.

From the Song of Mary:

"46 And Mary said: My soul magnifies the Lord,

47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;

For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

Catholics tend to agree with Mary's statement above... as does God, who chose Mary for the same reason.

You know, to be honest with you, that doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.

The Bible does not instruct us to pray to Mary. If you can find one area in the whole Bible that says otherwise I will gladly yield.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.

Yes I know they do not believe she ascended to heaven, instead they believe she assumed...body and soul.

Once again the bible makes no mention of this that I can find.

Back to the point though. They are wrong to hope that one would pray on their behalf, excepting of course the Son, Jesus Christ.

(Mat 6:6 MKJV) But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.

Does that say pray to Mary so that she may pray on your behalf? No, Christ clearly said to pray to the Father.

Also is it not Catholics who pray often repetitious prayers?

(Mat 6:7 MKJV) But when you pray, do not babble vain words, as the nations. For they think that in their much speaking they shall be heard.

It's almost as if they are trying to do everything the EXACT opposite of the way it was instructed..A bit ironic isn't it?

I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
If these would be the case, then the same ten commandments written on stone by God himself, would be a symbol that doesnt deserve worship.

Remember that after Moses, destroyed them, the pieces were kept in an arch, which was kept as a symbol of god himself.

And this goes the same, for jews, catholics or christians.

It doesn't get worship from the Jews. The old covenant gave very specific instructions about how to handle the Ark of the covenant.

Can you show me where it says it was a symbol of God the father?

##### Share on other sites

It doesn't get worship from the Jews. The old covenant gave very specific instructions about how to handle the Ark of the covenant.

Can you show me where it says it was a symbol of God the father?

That's an unreasonable request, seeing as the 'old' testament had no concept of the 'father' vs. the 'son'.

However, I do agree that the Ark of the Covenant was not something that was 'prayed to'. It was, however, a symbol of God. It had "Skhina" (שכינה) which is something like the "spirit" or "breath" of God. Those who touched it died immediately, and the custom was to carry it indirectly.

So there are a lot of worship customs to the ark of the covenant, even though it's not explicitly stated that it is TO be worshiped.

##### Share on other sites

That's an unreasonable request, seeing as the 'old' testament had no concept of the 'father' vs. the 'son'.

However, I do agree that the Ark of the Covenant was not something that was 'prayed to'. It was, however, a symbol of God. It had "Skhina" (שכינה) which is something like the "spirit" or "breath" of God. Those who touched it died immediately, and the custom was to carry it indirectly.

So there are a lot of worship customs to the ark of the covenant, even though it's not explicitly stated that it is TO be worshiped.

Well, actually there was a Son and a Father...Maybe not fully realized by the Isrealites but..

(

1Jn 1:1 MKJV) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life,

(1Jn 1:2 MKJV) (for the Life was revealed, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show to you the everlasting Life, who was with the Father and was revealed to us),

(1Jn 1:3 MKJV) that which we have seen and heard we declare unto you, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was the mediator between Man and God. John 1:1 is considered the true beginning of the Bible for the very fact that it reveals the very hand of God that created the universe.

So we both agree that the ark was not a graven image?

##### Share on other sites

How I see it, is why so many instructions for handling a simple box.

and why the pieces of stone, where suposedly god wrote on should be kept in it?, or is it maybe that its not simply sand whats in there ?

The whole ark and everything written in the bible about it, is a symbol of god.

##### Share on other sites

Well, actually there was a Son and a Father...Maybe not fully realized by the Isrealites but..

Regardless of your belief, this concept was never mentioned, written, or expressed *EVER* in the old testament.

You're entitled to believe that the father/son/holy-spirit always existed, but if you want to claim the old testament shares this assumption, you need to bring proof for it.

Jesus Christ was the mediator between Man and God. John 1:1 is considered the true beginning of the Bible for the very fact that it reveals the very hand of God that created the universe.

That's not from the old testament though. Historically, it came *MUCH MUCH MUCH* after than the texts (let alone the stories) of the old testament.

So we both agree that the ark was not a graven image?

It's not a graven image. It is a symbol. It's a problem, and it's a problem Jews know about and argue/discuss in the other jewish texts, explaining it theologically.

It's a box that held the essence of God. It wasn't just 'a symbol of god', one can claim it *WAS* god. An object that was to be treated as god. That's a symbol; it might not be an idol in the sense of another god, but it definitely is the symbol of God.

I will approach a few religious friends of mine (among them some rabbis) to ask them about this, see how they explain it theologically.

~moo

##### Share on other sites

It's not a graven image. It is a symbol. It's a problem, and it's a problem Jews know about and argue/discuss in the other jewish texts, explaining it theologically.

It's a box that held the essence of God. It wasn't just 'a symbol of god', one can claim it *WAS* god. An object that was to be treated as god. That's a symbol; it might not be an idol in the sense of another god, but it definitely is the symbol of God.

What about the cherubim on the ark? They're angels, and thus images of things from heaven.

##### Share on other sites

What does that box in every synagog represent, where the Tora is kept ?

Isnt it suposed to represent the ark of the covenant ?

A symbol or not ?

##### Share on other sites

Read the other posts, jryan. Idol is the english translation. The aramaic/hebrew is clear in saying no picture, symbol, statue or relief image of *anything*. Regardless of praying, you are not to have them. *THEN* it continues to say that you can't pray to them either.

Quite clear.

Your understanding of this passage assumes that the two passages are not connected while the Catholic belief is that they are. I accept the Catholic definition since IF the point of the first passage was to outlaw images of all kinds then the second passage is superfluous.

I wouldn't tell you not to make a pie and THEN not eat it.

I go to Church.

##### Share on other sites

Your understanding of this passage assumes that the two passages are not connected while the Catholic belief is that they are. I accept the Catholic definition since IF the point of the first passage was to outlaw images of all kinds then the second passage is superfluous.

I wouldn't tell you not to make a pie and THEN not eat it.

No, my understanding of the passage comes from the original context in the original language. Look at both repetitions of the ten commandments, and then at the several "expansions" and you will see it clearly.

No one argues that religions use theologic arguments to solve problems like these, I'm sure Christianity (on its various sects) is doing that as much as Judaism and any other religion.

But if you claim to follow the *literal* meaning, then there's little to argue about the *literal* meaning. If it's not about literal meaning that we talk about, rather the interpreted-symbolism, then we can discuss different interpretations all we want, but that would make no interpretation inherently better than the other.

I go to Church.

Do you do any form of work? Do you buy anything on Sabbath?

##### Share on other sites

I go to Church.

I'm sorry I have to comment on this. What day do you attend church jryan?

##### Share on other sites

Aha! I found the official Catholic position on this: (note the domain name in the link)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.71

(The numbers are footnotes on the linked page, which point to specific Bible verses.)

So, that's their justification. Line 2130 is particularly pointed, I think.

##### Share on other sites

No, my understanding of the passage comes from the original context in the original language. Look at both repetitions of the ten commandments, and then at the several "expansions" and you will see it clearly.

I see it clearly, mooeypoo. The instruction in Deuteronomy 5:8-9 and Exodus 20:4-5 are very clear, and the latter mention in Exodus 34:17 all relate to the same commandment, but as I said, the two more verbose of the passages logically connect the casting of images and the worshiping of those images in the same commandment. Otherwise the passages would be either reversed or the second passage would not be necessary.

No one argues that religions use theological arguments to solve problems like these, I'm sure Christianity (on its various sects) is doing that as much as Judaism and any other religion.

But if you claim to follow the *literal* meaning, then there's little to argue about the *literal* meaning. If it's not about literal meaning that we talk about, rather the interpreted-symbolism, then we can discuss different interpretations all we want, but that would make no interpretation inherently better than the other.

As I stated earlier, it is very easy to get into logical quicksand if you insist on being both literal and granular in your use of the Bible. Most passage come with a thousand passages of context.

Do you do any form of work? Do you buy anything on Sabbath?

As a disciple of the New Testament, yes I do, on occasion. In the Bible Jesus was questioned about the rigor of the Jewish Sabbath as well, and Jesus didn't agree with the strict interpretation:

23
And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the corn fields on the sabbath, that his disciples began to go forward and to pluck the ears of corn.
24
And the Pharisees said to him: Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25
And he said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, himself and they that were with him?
26
How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and ate the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him?
27
And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.
28
Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also. - Mark 2:23-28

9
And when he had passed from thence, he came into their synagogues.
10
And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? That they might accuse him.
11
But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that has one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?
12
How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days. - Matthew 12:9-12

Again, I would ask you to know the New Testament before you judge Christianity by the Old Testament.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I'm sorry I have to comment on this. What day do you attend church jryan?

I go on Saturday usually but I have gone on Sunday as well. Which day is the 7th day of the week is one of those arguments I tend not to get involved in because it is as simple an argument as whether or not Sunday is the end of the weekend or the start of a new week.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh, and while I am at it, here are the references used for article 2130 of the Catholic Catechism:

Numbers 21:4-9 (New International Version)

The Bronze Snake

4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, [a] to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!"

6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people.

8 The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

Exodus 25:10-22 (New International Version)

Description of the Arc

10 "Have them make a chest of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high.
11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. 16 Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.

17 "Make an atonement cover [c] of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. [d] 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

Kings-1 6:23-28 (New International Version)

Solomon Builds his Temple

23 In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits [l] high. 24 One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits—ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. 25 The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. 26 The height of each cherub was ten cubits. 27 He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 He overlaid the cherubim with gold.

1 Kings 7:23-26 (New International Version)

Solomons Palace

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [o] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [p] to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

25 The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth [q] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. [r]

Though all of 1 Kings 7 is about Solomon's cast images.

As such, it is hard to see how we are supposed to take Exodus 20:5 or Deuteronomy 5:8 as standalone passages or commandments. The Catholic interpretation is logically consistent throughout the Bible whereas the strict Jewish or Christian Fundamentalist interpretations are not.

Edited by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

## Create an account

Register a new account