/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

How then do we represent Christ through visual media?

Maybe we shouldn't

>>678216

and the rest of the verse reads

>and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.

The verse speaks of pagans.

>From the time of Aeneas’ arrival in Italy, images of men were cultivated, Jupiter, Hercules and so on. But after the conquest of Egypt during the reign of Caesar Augustus, the Romans took up the worship of animal images on account of the figures of animals discovered in the sky, to which the Egyptians, given to astrology, rendered divine worship. (Glossa Ordinaria)

And this is why you shouldn't take it upon yourself to interpret the Bible.

>>678341

For 2000 years Christians have been reading that line and no one understood it to mean what you claims it means. But now, you, some dude in 2018 concluded the real meaning, it's so obvious, right?

Did you read the rest of the chapter? Is st. Paul speaking of Christians who paint Christ?

>Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

Does this refer to Christians? Do catholics and orthodox worship statues of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things as God?

>For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

Does this refer to Christians? Do you have any knowledge of how Roman socetiy was like? You do realize st. Paul is writing to ROMANS?

It's embarrasing to claim that all of the above refer to Christians who paint a picture of Christ, just embarrasing.

>>678347

I didn't really refer to the post, more that all catholics herw think only priests and up should be the only one interpreting scripture

>>678349

Because its logical? You should consult your opinions with one with more experienced spirituality. I'm Orthodox, I interpret scripture and have my opinions but I always check it with my mentor or clergy to check if its correct, or ask them if certain passages are bit hard to understand for me. I think Catholics have same attitude too. Overall, its natural to consult and seek advice from more experienced

>29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

>30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

>>678349

What do you think: does the Bible have one meaning or 50 000 meanings? What do you think Christ wanted or intended? The Apostolic Churches, founded by the Apostles, have always held the one same meaning. If you want to take your chances with accepting the meaning number 35124 that your local pastor endorses, by all means go for it.

>>678349

And speaking of Pharisees, what do you make of Christ saying this

>The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

Did other Jews have the authority to teach and interpret? Did Christ say that they could do it? If He didn't support them doing so, in regard to the Old testament, why do you think He would support Christians doing the same with the Bible? We have the bishop of Rome in the chair of st. Peter, bishop of Alexandria in the chair of st. Mark, bishop of Jerusalem in chair of st. Andrew and so forth.

>>678349

>pi is 3 guys I swear I read the whole thing in a math textbook

>STOP TELLING ME I'M WRONG YOU'RE ALL LITERALLY HITLER

The real sin here is that this shitposter got my (you).

>>678361

>>678401

>I cant read: the posts

>>678347

>It's embarrasing to claim that all of the above refer to Christians who paint a picture of Christ,

Don't forget the worshipping of the painting.

>>678460

>explain again how that refers to literal any visual depiction of jesus?

A visual depiction of Jesus is God made in man's image

Anyone who has a problem with visual depictions of Christ has a problem with the incarnation.

If we can represent the saints and Mary then we can represent the messiah.

>>678499

But why are they worshipping those images though?

>>678508

I've seen people point to those images and say "behold God" and "behold our Lord." I've also seen them prostrating before them, kissing them and similar acts as this. We both know this happens. It is perverted and base idolatry, and I don't care what latin words you try to use, it doesn't matter.

>>678511

I kiss my gf, doesn't mean I worship her.

Prostration is a sign of respect for what the images represent and remind us of.

>>678499

The messiah isn't a mere man. You cannot depict Him without depicting God, unless you're saying the humanity and divinity are divisible.

>>678520

Since God became man and humbled himself with a finite form he opened himself up to visual representation, he opened himself up to being poked (by Thomas and by spears), he opened himself to all manner of things.

Denying pictorial representations of Christ is denying his actual human form, I think the gnostics who thought he was a ghost would side with iconoclasts.

>>678515

>The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

Reply to Jesus instead of avoiding the question.

>>678523

God did not "open himself up" to being tortured and blasphemed, these things did not cease to be damnable sins just because He was in human form. Likewise to blaspheme His glory by making Him like unto mere men did not cease to be a sin.

>>678496

>God became man

>Still can't depict the Man

I'm not even Apostolic, but your logic baffles me.

>>678688

The man is God

Post the rest of verse.

>>678523

>Denying pictorial representations of Christ is denying his actual human form,

So what, are you saying the pictorial representation IS his actual human form? This doesn't make any sense.

>>678634

Then you believe the incarnation was a blasphemy.

Back to /islam/

>>678963

Not an argument

The verse refers to those who say Jesus was a man and not God

>>678589

The seat of Moses was litetally invented by the synagogue of satan. The very post you posted proves you wrong. You're literally defending the children of Satan. The seat of Moses is literally unbiblical talmudism. It's as unbiblical as the rest of the practices of the jews that Jesus rebuked.

>but according to their works do ye not.

>>679018

>but we will defend it because we prefer the seat of the pope over God

>>679018

>The seat of Moses is literally unbiblical talmudism. It's as unbiblical as the rest of the practices of the jews that Jesus rebuked.

If this is the case, why does Jesus tell His disciples to do what the Pharisees taught because they had sitten on the chair of Moses?

>have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do:

>>679060

Why did Jesus and Romans 13 tell them to pay taxes and to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

Is it because Caesar had correct doctrine?

>>679699

>What does it have to do with the subject?

It's the same with the Pharisaic. They were merely civil rulers, not teachers, and people had to do what they say because of their political position.