TSR Christian Apologetics Society

bohemian

Woo, congrats.

Can we continue on the "why are statues of Jesus allowed" topic? I understand that you guys think it's OK because you sort of have permission, because Jesus was human, but what about the fact that essentially he was still G-d inside (I'm gonna write G-d like that because you guys probably see your G-d as the same one that I believe in, and to a point I do too)? Physical appearance shouldn't really be important.

Yea the God really is the same after all Jesus was the son of God and Jesus was Jewish. I personally disagree with the statues of Jesus however i can see how they aind worship.

bohemian

Also, do you put "He" with a capital "h" when you refer to Jesus or not? I would assume that you do because you're referring to the same...what's the word...well Jesus is equal to G-d for you because it's like G-d split up (I'll save the monotheism bit :p:

).
?

Always a 'He' for Jesus, when i type it anyway

Edit: hope that helped :smile:

Reply 22

bohemian

Woo, congrats.

Can we continue on the "why are statues of Jesus allowed" topic? I understand that you guys think it's OK because you sort of have permission, because Jesus was human, but what about the fact that essentially he was still G-d inside (I'm gonna write G-d like that because you guys probably see your G-d as the same one that I believe in, and to a point I do too)? Physical appearance shouldn't really be important.

Also, do you put "He" with a capital "h" when you refer to Jesus or not? I would assume that you do because you're referring to the same...what's the word...well Jesus is equal to G-d for you because it's like G-d split up (I'll save the monotheism bit :p:

).

Basically I don't understand why you would do anything differently for G-d, Jesus or the Holy Spirit because they're all one and the same in Christianity. Or is that not true?

I am taking the liberty of pasting my reply to another member's opinion which was that icons and such like are against the first Commandment. I hope it helps.

I presume you are talking here of the first in the Decalogue;

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them...

God was talking about making images and likenesses of other gods - not of Himself!

Reply 23

Captain Scarlet

bohemian

Basically I don't understand why you would do anything differently for G-d, Jesus or the Holy Spirit because they're all one and the same in Christianity. Or is that not true?

Yes God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit or the Father, Son and Holy Spirit if you prefer are all one, they are known as the trinity and by the part in italics do you mean why do we see them as seperate?

Reply 24

bohemian

Yawn, by "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", don't you think that includes G-d, because He's seen as being "in heaven above" and, well, everywhere else...Besides, Jesus was "in the earth" so that would seem to apply to him too, in a more specific way. Clearly making an image of another god is bang out of order but I interpret that slightly differently.

Luton, I understand that you see G-d in 3 parts, but somehow still as one, and that raises the question as to why you would have different "rules" for one or other of them (like why you can have statues of Jesus but not the other 2 parts). Does that make sense?

Reply 25

Captain Scarlet

bohemian

Yawn, by "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", don't you think that includes G-d, because He's seen as being "in heaven above" and, well, everywhere else...Besides, Jesus was "in the earth" so that would seem to apply to him too, in a more specific way. Clearly making an image of another god is bang out of order but I interpret that slightly differently.

Luton, I understand that you see G-d in 3 parts, but somehow still as one, and that raises the question as to why you would have different "rules" for one or other of them (like why you can have statues of Jesus but not the other 2 parts). Does that make sense?

Yea it makes sense. Well Jesus came as a man so we can almost guess what He looks like. The holy spirit is different but is sometimes represented as a dove as when Jesus was baptised a dove came down and God said 'This is my son who i am proud of' the exact wording escapes me right now. God is an infinite being so is really hard to visualise, by all means go with the old man and a beard dressed in white lol but to make a statue of God is near impossible due to the fact He is everywhere and everything. That make sense?

Reply 26

bohemian

Yawn, by "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", don't you think that includes G-d, because He's seen as being "in heaven above" and, well, everywhere else...Besides, Jesus was "in the earth" so that would seem to apply to him too, in a more specific way. Clearly making an image of another god is bang out of order but I interpret that slightly differently.

It's a salient point to remember that God started of His first Commandment by saying "I am the Lord your God, you shall not have any other gods before me.."

What follows is to me anyway, perfectly logical grammar.

What is a "graven" image? The word graven means cut, chiseled or engraved. God's commandment against graven images refer to the worship of idols shaped by human hands, in the style of the pagans. It clearly (at least as far as I am concerned) did not mean that all images are inherently evil - neither statues in churches, nor photos in wallets. In fact, on many occasions God Himself specifically directs the Israelites to fashion images of various types. So clearly it is the worship of such images that is an abomination, not the images themselves. :smile:

There are many illustrations from scripture that evidence the above. I shall give a few here to support my contention:

Ex. 25:18 - God directed the Israelites to decorate the ark of the covenant with images of angels: "Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two end of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above..."

2 Chron. 4:4 - Figures of twelve metal oxen stood in temple. "It rested on twelve oxen, three facing north, three west, three south, and three east, with their haunches all toward the centre..."

Num. 21:8 - "...the Lord said the Moses, 'Make a saraph and mount it on a pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it, he will recover.' Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole..."
This is, prima facie, a violation of the supposed injunction against fashioning images of creatures, yet God Himself commands it. So clearly the literalist interpretation - that any fashioning of images of creatures is offensive to God - must be faulty.

And note the NT's reference to this event:

Jn. 3:14-15 - "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life." The Israelites were saved after Moses followed God's directive and fashioned a figure of a snake and held it up before the people. It is therefore quite obvious that the commandment did not forbid all images of physical beings.

Finally;

Is. 45:20 - "They are without knowledge who bear wooden idols and pray to gods that cannot save."

It is the worship of false gods that is forbidden, not the simple fashioning of images. Nowhere do the scriptures actually forbid us from fashioning images, graven or otherwise. They merely forbid us from worshipping images, which of course no Christian could ever conceive of doing! :wink:

Reply 27

A Shining Light

Hey, I wanna join; I can't say I'll take an active part in all the discussions but I may find this society useful if ever I need to defend my faith...

I also type 'He' instead of 'he' when referring to God. I agree with yawn on the statues part...

Reply 28

bohemian

Thanks for the responses. I think I get where you're coming from, and it does sort of make sense...I'm not saying I agree :p:

but I see where you're coming from.
I have another question :smile:

Jesus was apparently the product of a virgin birth, so how was he a descendant of King David (see Genesis and Isaiah)?

Reply 29

bohemian

Thanks for the responses. I think I get where you're coming from, and it does sort of make sense...I'm not saying I agree :p:

but I see where you're coming from.
I have another question :smile:

Jesus was apparently the product of a virgin birth, so how was he a descendant of King David (see Genesis and Isaiah)?

Nathan had this very debate with a member of your faith group before, who said that Jesus could not be the Messiah since He did not come from the House of David.

Unfortunately, I can't remember the substance - oops. :redface:

I'm sure he'll pick up on your question and answer it to your satisfaction.

I have one for you, bohemian - I know you're not a Christian but I'm sure you'll do your best to explain to me;

In the NT, Christ directed his disciples to go and preach His word, so this is why we evangelise.

Was there no sort of similar instruction in the OT (or Torah) and if not, is that the reason why you don't evangelise?

Reply 30

The Green Manalishi

What's the symbol of this soc? As in, what significance does it have/ what is it?

Reply 31

The Green Manalishi

What's the symbol of this soc? As in, what significance does it have/ what is it?

It's the 'Chi-Rho' - the traditional symbol of Christianity.

I'm providing a link that explains it, and gives an image of the symbol.

http://www.rochester.edu/College/REL/symbols/chiro.html

Reply 32

NathanL

OP

13

It's great huh? I've used it as the symbol for my "Teen Apologetics" site for some time now.

I thought that it offered an intellectual depth, a eye-catching symbol and a general appeal that would lead people to the society :biggrin:

But I'm easy - if anyone has any other suggestions?

Nathan :smile:

Reply 33

The Green Manalishi

NathanL

It's great huh? I've used it as the symbol for my "Teen Apologetics" site for some time now.

I thought that it offered an intellectual depth, a eye-catching symbol and a general appeal that would lead people to the society :biggrin:

But I'm easy - if anyone has any other suggestions?

Nathan :smile:

It's definitely a cool symbol yeah :smile:

Reply 34

bohemian

yawn

Nathan had this very debate with a member of your faith

Ooh, I'll try a search, but Nathan, if you could explain it, I'd be most grateful :smile:

In the NT, Christ directed his disciples to go and preach His word, so this is why we evangelise.

Was there no sort of similar instruction in the OT (or Torah) and if not, is that the reason why you don't evangelise?

Hmm, good (and tricky) question. Jews don't evangelise for a number of reasons, the one I hear most often is that because we don't believe that only people of a certain faith go to "heaven" (partly because the Jewish idea of "hell" is very different to the Christian one I guess) there is no need to convert people to Judaism. We don't see Judaism as the "one path to G-d" in so far as goyim (non-Jews) can have a relationship with G-d as much as Jews can. Jews just have extra responsibility with the extra commandments (613 in total), whereas goyim are only expected to observe 7. Judaism is way more open and accepting of other faiths than most people think (Isaiah 54 for example, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples") so there's no point seeking converts or evangelising, if you get me. I'm sure there are teachings about this in the Torah but I can't think of any right now :redface:

Sorry if that seems like a random thought process, I'm not so good at expressing myself!

Reply 35

NathanL

OP

13

Hey Bohemian, yeh it's no problem.

It depends how you want to swing it really.

1) If you're looking for patristic, legal lineage then it wouldn't matter if Joseph wasn't His genetic father - the cultural norms of the day were such that identity would have been realised from which group you were seen to be under, and Joseph took Jesus as His own and for all legal intents and purposes, He was. Joseph was of the Davidic line, and so that would legally and patristically make Christ Davidic also.

2) If you're looking for genetic lineage then one would look to Mary's family, her cousin (Elizabeth) we know to have had ancestral roots in the Aaronic priesthood and included in this was the Davidic line. So Christ did have a genetic claim.

And a legal, patristic one, which is what mattered more.

Hope that helps,

Nathan :smile:

Reply 36

pwofessow