And every time I read this verse it feels like a jab.
"And they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man" Romans 1:23
How then do we represent Christ through visual media?
Maybe we shouldn't
and the rest of the verse reads
The verse speaks of pagans.
And this is why you shouldn't take it upon yourself to interpret the Bible.
You Catholics here on Zig Forums reminds me of the Pharisees
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?
Does this refer to Christians? Do catholics and orthodox worship statues of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things as God?
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.
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
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
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.
And speaking of Pharisees, what do you make of Christ saying this
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.
The absolute state of papists
The real sin here is that this shitposter got my (you).
Don't forget the worshipping of the painting.
he's talking about false gods especially ones that resemble animals.
like the greek gods who were very degenerate. Zeus basically went around raping everything.
explain again how that refers to literal any visual depiction of jesus? Are you a mohammadean or just a heretical iconoclast? If so repent.
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.
But why are they worshipping those images though?
Who worships the images themselves? They worship "through" them, they are windows to the spiritual realm, reminders, like how hymns point our minds towards God. But it's good to remind people that God became one of us, a man that can be represented visually. What's wrong with that?
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.
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.
The messiah isn't a mere man. You cannot depict Him without depicting God, unless you're saying the humanity and divinity are divisible.
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.
Reply to Jesus instead of avoiding the question.
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.
I'm not even Apostolic, but your logic baffles me.
The man is God
Post the rest of verse.
So what, are you saying the pictorial representation IS his actual human form? This doesn't make any sense.
Then you believe the incarnation was a blasphemy.
Back to /islam/
Not an argument
The verse refers to those who say Jesus was a man and not God
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.
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:
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?
It's because he had, as Paul says, real and legitimate authority - the ability to morally bind others to do your will - in matters secular, and so in these matters he could exercise it as he wanted.
And since such authority doesn't depend on what the ruler believes, Caesar could still have it even though he believed wrong things.
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.