Pope Praying To A Statue?

[XIX]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061189' date='Sep 12 2006, 06:25 AM']


Were they WORSHIPPING the actual calf created, OR... were they USING it to represent?
[/quote]
worshipping
[quote]1And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, [b]make us gods[/b], which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

2And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

3And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.

4And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, [b]These be thy gods, O Israel, [/b] which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

5And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.

6And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

7And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

8They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have [b]worshipped[/b] it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, [b]These be thy gods[/b], O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. [/quote]
And you call us biblical illiterates?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061189' date='Sep 12 2006, 06:25 AM']
Oh dear biblical illiterate....
[/quote]

This so-called Biblical illiterate, again? How do you make charge such as this using the gutted KJ Bible, the canon of Luther, and not the The Canon of the Apostles? I challenge you to a debate to defend rejecting the authority of the Apostles, and their Canon. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57077"]CLICK HERE[/url] I await your response.

[Winchester]

Maybe the bible writers were confused, saying they "worshipped it."

[Eutychus]

[quote]This so-called Biblical illiterate, again? How do you make charge such as this using the gutted KJ Bible, the canon of Luther, and not the The Canon of the Apostles? [/quote]

Is this your new way of AVOIDING answering things?

Otaaaay, if you insist. But everyone here will see through that little charade in a nuns lunchbreak!

[Aloysius]

I think everyone can clearly see through your charade... you have just attempted to grossly mis-represent a biblical passage towards your own ends (see above, they were not making a golden calf to represent God)

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061183' date='Sep 12 2006, 07:43 AM']My dear man, I honestly feel sorry for you. If one cannot discern the difference between a SERMON and a PLASTER IDOL, there is literally nothing one can do for you to make things clearer.[/quote]I have attempted to argue from a Biblical and historical perspective. Instead of responding to my posts, you provide emotional responses (i.e. "I honestly feel sorry for you") that don't help dialogue.

I'll attempt to rephrase my previous point by asking the following questions: do you believe that watching a movie that features a visual representation of Our Lord is properly considered idolatry? Do you think that children's picture books that include visual representations of Our Lord are idolatry?

If you answer the question, we might be able to further our dialogue. If you'd like a head-start on my reasoning for asking the question, I'll provide you with both responses.

If you respond that movies and picture books [i]are not[/i] idolatry, then you have denied the rigid interpretation of this commandment that you use against Catholics. It shows that prejudice, and not logic, is what motivates your relentless search for splinters in other people's eyes.

If you respond that all of these things [i]are[/i] idolatry, then you have yet to be consistent and condemn those people who watch movies featuring Our Lord or reading picture books. You should be leading the charge to close all the idolatrous family bookstores that are full of images of of Our Lord.

The key question in understanding the commandment forbidding idols is, "What is an idol?" Idols are the [b]object[/b] of worship. That means that this physical item [b]is[/b] what one worships. No Catholic would accept such a characterization of our use of statues, for the same reason that a protestant/evangelical/Baptist/whatever would not accept the accusation they worship their KJV Bible.

This shows the problem with your argument: it is based on a misrepresentation. You can repeat your lie all day long; but, it never will come true. And your bearing false witness against us is no mark on our souls.

Regarding your response, you still have not addressed any of the Old Testament uses of statues, as commanded by God. There's a lot of inconvenient facts that you have attempting to avoid. Triumphal statements like , "Starting to make people uncomfortable yet?" ring hollow, as you cannot provide a solid response to our Biblical arguments.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061183' date='Sep 12 2006, 07:43 AM']As I stated earlier in this thread, if you WANT to be using plaster idols go ahead. And on judgement day, you can explain things to Paul, how he REALLY meant the crucifix idol, when he penned those words, and why wasn't he clearer about things.[/quote]And you can own picture books and movies about the crucifixion, and explain how those things are any different.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061403' date='Sep 12 2006, 04:45 PM']Otaaaay, if you insist. But everyone here will see through that little charade in a nuns lunchbreak!
[/quote]Pot/Kettle/Black...

You might want to find some new stand-up material. You've worn out "nun's lunchbreak."

[Eutychus]

[quote] I think everyone can clearly see through your charade... you have just attempted to grossly mis-represent a biblical passage towards your own ends (see above, they were not making a golden calf to represent God)[/quote]

ElohIM, the word used in the original Hebrew IS PLURAL.

[b]430. 'elohiym[/b]

Search for H430 in KJVSL
Myhla 'elohiym el-o-heem'

plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God;

For what it is worth.

God's is plural.

They just had the Trinity in a foundational form, but confused.

Also this is the VERY SAME HEBREW word used in the first sentence of the bible. And there too the ELOHIM ... plural ... is used. So, may I inquire, was Moses worshipping false GODS when he penned the book of Genesis for God?

As I said...oh ye biblical illiteratess. { I *LOVE* saying that...hehehehhe }

[quote]I'll attempt to rephrase my previous point by asking the following questions: do you believe that watching a movie that features a visual representation of Our Lord is properly considered idolatry? Do you think that children's picture books that include visual representations of Our Lord are idolatry?[/quote]

Yes and yes. We are NOT to try to make visual representations of things in heaven, male or female. And last time I checked, both God the Father, and Y'shua, are considered males in scripture, right?

Edited September 12, 2006 by Eutychus

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1061166' date='Sep 12 2006, 04:51 AM']In regards to venerating the pope, you realize the apostles were venerated by their followers.
"Highly regarded" is that translation's interpretation. Stronger words used in others. The point is the same. The apostle's were not treated the same as average Joes. This is one example. There are others, even better. I would find if not sleepy.[/quote]Imagine how scandalized some protestants would be if a Catholic tried to heal himself by being overshadowed by the pope's shadow ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts5.htm#v15"]cf. Acts 5:15[/url]). LOL

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061494' date='Sep 12 2006, 05:31 PM']
ElohIM, the word used in the original Hebrew IS PLURAL.

[b]430. 'elohiym[/b]

Search for H430 in KJVSL
Myhla 'elohiym el-o-heem'

plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God;

For what it is worth.

God's is plural.

They just had the Trinity in a foundational form, but confused.

Also this is the VERY SAME HEBREW word used in the first sentence of the bible. And there too the ELOHIM ... plural ... is used. So, may I inquire, was Moses worshipping false GODS when he penned the book of Genesis for God?

As I said...oh ye biblical illiteratess. { I *LOVE* saying that...hehehehhe }[/quote]
I don't think this was written to me, but your message is a bit garbled. Maybe you didn't re-read before you posted.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061494' date='Sep 12 2006, 05:31 PM']Yes and yes. We are NOT to try to make visual representations of things in heaven, male or female. And last time I checked, both God the Father, and Y'shua, are considered males in scripture, right?[/quote]But the commandment doesn't just forbid "things in heaven, male, or female." You are forgetting to mention that it also forbids visual representations of "anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth." (quoting from [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus20.htm#v4"]Ex 20:4[/url]).

So, do you believe that all images are contrary to the commandment against idolatry? In other words, every picture taken by a camera, every 1st grade art class picture of a sunset, pictures of lambs, etc? Is this what you and your pastor believe?

[Eutychus]

[quote]But the commandment doesn't just forbid "things in heaven, male, or female." You are forgetting to mention that it also forbids visual representations of "anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth." (quoting from Ex 20:4). [/quote]

I would expect even a beginner to "get" that this is alluding to FOR RELIGION or WORSHIP.

But then, the obvioius, seems such a daunting task to the well trained pew sort.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062555' date='Sep 14 2006, 10:43 AM']I would expect even a beginner to "get" that this is alluding to FOR RELIGION or WORSHIP.

But then, the obvioius, seems such a daunting task to the well trained pew sort.[/quote]Please don't confuse my struggle to understand Pentecostal beliefs as a confusion about what I believe about Holy Scriptures. Pentecostal beliefs are anything but "obvious." Heck, it's "obvious" that St. Paul, around [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians14.htm#v19"]1 Cor 14:19[/url], discouraged speaking in tongues (especially among believers); but that doesn't stop Pentecostal churches from their modern rendition of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia"]glossolalia[/url]. I am quite sure that [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians14.htm#v23"]1 Cor 14:23 [/url] isn't a rebuke against the Catholic Church.

OK, so back to religious art. So you're OK with pictures and statues of Our Lord [i]outside[/i] the context of worship? Were the early Christians idolatrous for having pictures of lambs and ΙΧΘΥΣ symbols used in the context of their worship? In your view, it seems that the commandment isn't forbidding images (i.e. pictures, statues) as it literally says; but only their use in certain contexts.

But, if you are correct regarding your belief that all pictures and statues are forbidden from the context of religion and worship, why do you avoid commenting on the Old Testament passages in which statues were used in the context of religion/worship (e.g. [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers21.htm#v9"]the bronze serpent[/url], [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1kings/1kings6.htm#v23"]graven gold-covered cherubim[/url], etc)?

Since I'm a mere "trained pew sort" and you're an expert (having spent all of your income on tapes, books, etc), I'm sure you haven't been avoiding an obvious hole in you argument; but instead, you're just looking for the right time to share your wisdom with us poor Catholics.

Now's the time.

PS--On a side note, Eutychus, your argument is based on allusion, which is contrary to literal interpretation. I'm sure there are a number of places in which Pentecostals would differ from other Protestant denominations, when one believes in "allusion" and another in a literal interpretation. I think this ability of various denominations to contradict eachother with the literal/allusion divide is what helps keep splitting Protestantism. They all think that they themselves hold the "common sense" view of Holy Scripture. Sadly, common sense changes with the wind...

[Eutychus]

[quote]Please don't confuse my struggle to understand Pentecostal beliefs as a confusion about what I believe about Holy Scriptures. Pentecostal beliefs are anything but "obvious." Heck, it's "obvious" that St. Paul, around 1 Cor 14:19, discouraged speaking in tongues (especially among believers); but that doesn't stop Pentecostal churches from their modern rendition of glossolalia. I am quite sure that 1 Cor 14:23 isn't a rebuke against the Catholic Church. [/quote]

Take that one up with Fr. Cantalessimo, the PERSONAL priest to the papal household for BOTH JPII and for BENNY.

Fr. Cantalessimo is actually MORE pentecostal than I am, are you aware, that chosing a PERSONAL priest for the pope himself is not something that is lightly done?

I sugest that if you have problem with glossa, or other pentecostal/charismatic use of the gifts, you are, in efffect saying that BOTH John Paul II, and now Benny 16 have made serious doctrinal mistakes in chosing a personal pastor....

As is usually the case around here, the EX Catholic, improperly Catechised will teach you things about your church that you never knew....

If anyone wants to examine the teachings and writings of the PERSONAL PRIEST now to the last two Popes...

[url="http://www.cantalamessa.org/en/2003catelgandolfo.htm"]CLICK HERE _ Do YOU STILL THINK THAT PENTECOSTALISM IS IMPROPER?[/url]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062999' date='Sep 14 2006, 10:38 PM']Take that one up with Fr. Cantalessimo, the PERSONAL priest to the papal household for BOTH JPII and for BENNY.

Fr. Cantalessimo is actually MORE pentecostal than I am, are you aware, that chosing a PERSONAL priest for the pope himself is not something that is lightly done?[/quote]I think you mean "Charismatic", not "Pentecostal."

Quoting from the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement"]Wiki[/url] (underline is mine):[quote]Often confused with Pentecostalism (which it was inspired by), charismatic Christianity tends to differ in key aspects: [u]most charismatics reject the preeminence given by Pentecostalism to glossolalia[/u], reject what they consider to be legalism sometimes associated with Pentecostalism, and often stay in their existing denominations such as Roman Catholic Charismatics.[/quote]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062999' date='Sep 14 2006, 10:38 PM']I sugest that if you have problem with glossa, or other pentecostal/charismatic use of the gifts, you are, in efffect saying that BOTH John Paul II, and now Benny 16 have made serious doctrinal mistakes in chosing a personal pastor....[/quote]Wow, that's quite an assertion. Doctrinal mistakes...that sounds serious. Would this be, the "doctrine of glossolalia"? LOL

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062999' date='Sep 14 2006, 10:38 PM']As is usually the case around here, the EX Catholic, improperly Catechised will teach you things about your church that you never knew....[/quote]As is usually the case, you assume too much.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062999' date='Sep 14 2006, 10:38 PM']If anyone wants to examine the teachings and writings of the PERSONAL PRIEST now to the last two Popes...

[url="http://www.cantalamessa.org/en/2003catelgandolfo.htm"]CLICK HERE _ Do YOU STILL THINK THAT PENTECOSTALISM IS IMPROPER?[/url][/quote]Interestingly, the article you cite [u]doesn't even mention glossalalia[/u]. A search on the entire website for "glossolalia" and "tongues" revealed nothing (actually, the latter term did lead to some discussions of the tongues of fire at Pentecost).

An search of the entire web for the terms "Cantalamessa" and "Glossolalia" resulted in no hard evidence that he even advocates the modern renditions of glossolalia. There were some hits; but the terms just happened to be on the same page.

A small bit of advice: if you're going to provide a link which "proves" your assertion, you might want to double check to make sure that it actually says what you want it to say.

PS: Just a little reminder for you...

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1062652' date='Sep 14 2006, 02:37 PM']But, if you are correct regarding your belief that all pictures and statues are forbidden from the context of religion and worship, why do you avoid commenting on the Old Testament passages in which statues were used in the context of religion/worship (e.g. [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers21.htm#v9"]the bronze serpent[/url], [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1kings/1kings6.htm#v23"]graven gold-covered cherubim[/url], etc)?

Since I'm a mere "trained pew sort" and you're an expert (having spent all of your income on tapes, books, etc), I'm sure you haven't been avoiding an obvious hole in you argument; but instead, you're just looking for the right time to share your wisdom with us poor Catholics.

Now's the time.[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

Bump.

Waiting for Eutychus to explain Old Testament use of bronze serpents and graven images, as commanded by God.

[Selah]

Hey me too!