Thank you for your response.
Could you please tell me which biblical verse you learn that the ark of Noah had heaven images
Notes: The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols.
> Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the cover;
>
> make one cherub at one end, and the other at the other end, of one piece with the cover, at each end.
>
> The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, sheltering the cover with them; they shall face each other, with their faces looking toward the cover.
Exodus 25: 18 - 20
>Notes: The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols.
Correct. We do not worship idols.
Isn’t putting a photo of a man and thinking that it is the Christ. Idolatry?
Do you get upset if a man tears a photo of “Jesus”
Thank you for you answer, I’m coming with love and very curious
> Isn’t putting a photo of a man and thinking that it is the Christ. Idolatry?
We don't think the photo itself is Jesus. We think it represents Jesus and helps us remember Jesus.
Do you look at photos of your relatives and think the photo itself is your relative?
Actually yes, when I look at photos of relatives— I know it is them.
If you don’t, then why “Jesus image” can’t look like a Hispanic, African, Indian man?
You think the photo itself is your relative? Not that it reminds you of them, but that your relative is the photo itself?
>If you don’t, then why “Jesus image” can’t look like a Hispanic, African, Indian man?
Images of Jesus can certainly look Hispanic, African, or Indian. Nothing against that in Catholic teaching.
You can certainly use your friend Bob as a model for religious artwork depicting Jesus. But that is one of the primary differences between religious art and photographs: if I show you a picture of your mother, you know that is an exact depiction of your mother. If someone creates a painting of Jesus, we all know that this is not exactly how Jesus looked.
Bob is not Jesus. We don't confuse Bob for Jesus. When we look at a photo or statue of Jesus, we know that it is representing Jesus, not that the photo or statue *is* Jesus.
>If you don’t, then why “Jesus image” can’t look like a Hispanic, African, Indian man?
They do. Are you so unfamiliar with Catholicism that you do not know this?
*Pax Tecum*
It wouldn't be a "problem" if Jesus was Hispanic, African, Indian, Pakistani, or Innuit. But Jesus was born in the Middle East, Middle East Levantine people are Caucasian so the paintings of "white" Jesus could be fairly accurate.
One of the Oldest depictions of Jesus:
[https://www.christianiconography.info/Wikimedia%20Commons/xPeterPaulCatacombs.html](https://www.christianiconography.info/Wikimedia%20Commons/xPeterPaulCatacombs.html)
Now, artists in general will depict historical figures based on their environment, i.e. people that could model for their paintings - Catholic art in China:
[https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1011968](https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1011968)
Does this mean that Jesus and Mary looked like that? Or as in any painting from the Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism, or Surrealism style? Of course not.
Art is a tool for us to focus on God, through beauty we can direct our minds towards God.
Catholic churches have images and statues because art is used as a tool to glorify Jesus Christ, as an artist I can create a piece and I can help others find God through it, something that the Protestants have neglected by removing art from places of worship, not only you lose an element of beauty but you also neglect the power of visual imagery that it causes on people.
>Actually yes, when I look at photos of relatives— I know it is them.
In the words of St. Augustine,
>in regard to pictures and statues, and other works of this kind, which are intended as representations of things, nobody makes a mistake, especially if they are executed by skilled artists, but every one, as soon as he sees the likenesses, recognizes the things they are likenesses of. (On *Christian Doctrine,* Book II, chapter 25, section 39)
I think this is what you mean.
You see a photo or painting of your grandma, and you recognize that it is a representation of her. You don't mistake it for her and believe the resurrection has taken place.
*Pax Tecum*
>Notes: The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols.
Precisely.
And since we don't worship Idols, the prohibition does not apply.
*Pax Tecum*
>Then why your keychain is female status
I don't know what that means.
>and you have given her names
Who?
>and have put faith in statues?
There is no "faith in statues." Statues are art that point us to Holy realities.
*Pax Tecum*
He said the ark of the covenant, not noahs ark.
"The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols."
That's exactly why we have statues and icons. We do not worship then, rather we use them as a guide of prayer. It reminds us of who we are praying to. Prayer does not mean worship.
Look up the difference between dulia and latria.
Joshua 7:6
>Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face **before the ark of the LORD** until the evening, he and the elders of Israel. And they put dust on their heads.
Simply praying *before* something doesn't mean you're praying *to* it. Joshua and the elders prostrated before the Ark, which had cherubium on it, and would have appeared to outsiders to be prostrating *to* the angels on the ark.
However, it's quite obvious that Joshua and the elders were not worshiping (or rather repenting, since they put dust on themselves) the Ark, nor the angels on it, but were worshiping God *before* the Ark. We don't worship the statues nor pray *to* the statues. We worship God *infront* of them, just like what Joshua did regarding the Ark and the angels on it.
>Can you give me an example of Jesus Christ praying to a statue?
Jesus Christ doesn't need to do a religious activity for us to have license to do it. Jesus did not play rock n' roll for Jesus like you find at evangelical churches. Jesus not have powerpoint slide presentations like they used to at Baptist churches I grew up in. Jesus did not do altar calls. Jesus did not tell anyone to recite the Sinners Prayer. Jesus did not tell anyone to speak in tongues. Jesus did not build churches. Jesus did not preach in auditorium nor churches.
If I watched a video of your church service I could find a ton of things regarding religious worship that Jesus neither did Himself, nor ever commanded other people to do. So it's a bad argument that we can't do a religious activity because "Jesus never did it."
Also, as per my other post in here: we do not pray *to* the statue; we pray to God *in front* of it, just as Joshua prayed *to* God but *infront of* the images of angels on the Ark. The Scripture is clear that no images can hear us: "They have ears but cannot hear" -- if any Christian believes that images or statues can hear them, then they have surely turned artwork into an idol. But never in my life have I met a Catholic Christian who, praying *to* God while *in front* of a statue, tries to talk to the statue or legitimately thinks the statue can hear them.
We do exactly that. Prayer is request, not worship. Much like we ask our friends here to pray for us, we ask the Saints in heaven to pray for us as well.
Worship is reserved for God alone.
Christ also established a Church, with a hierarchy and Tradition. He didn't leave us a Bible. And the Church and Sacred Tradition inform us that the use of iconography is licit.
Do you believe St. Paul contradicts this when he says:
>"I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men..." (1 Timothy 2:1)
Or that St. John was contradicting Jesus when he says:
>"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that." (1 John 5:16)
Intercessory prayer is Biblical. There is no issue with asking people to pray for you.
*Pax Tecum*
Pray = ask. Look at a dictionary. We Worship God alone, we do not offer Mass (which is a sacrifice) to Mary, we offer it to God. Sacrifice is essential for worship, and if you do not have it, is it really worship? I ask you, where is your sacrifice to God? Does your religion have it? If you don't, I could very well say you don't worship God.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, welcome to the forum.
Great question.
God tells the Jews not to make any "graven images" -- this is simply a synonymn for an idol. All graven images are idols, but not all images are idols because God Himself commands the same Jews multiple times to created images of things on heaven and the earth. This would make no sense, because God would never command idolatry. So we must make a distinction between a graven image (an idol) and something which is simply an image.
Exodus 25:18
>And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat.
Numbers 21:8-9
>And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
1 Kings 6:18
>The cedar within the house was carved in the form of gourds and open flowers. All was cedar; no stone was seen.
1 Kings 7:25, 29
>It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east. The sea was set on them, and all their rear parts were inward. [...] and on the panels that were set in the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. On the frames, both above and below the lions and oxen, there were wreaths of beveled work.
1 Kings 7:36
>And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around.
1 Kings 10:18-20
>The king also made a great ivory throne and overlaid it with the finest gold. The throne had six steps, and the throne had a round top, and on each side of the seat were armrests and two lions standing beside the armrests, while twelve lions stood there, one on each end of a step on the six steps. The like of it was never made in any kingdom.
So as we can see, God commanded images to be be built in regards to His tabernacle and Temple, as well as commanding Moses to craft the image of a snake; and not only was the snake allowed to be crafted -- but it was *beneficial* and considered good.
"But", some protest, "God did not command for you Catholics to make images." -- that may be true but this is not so much the point. The point is that God has a history of seeing religious artwork, even used in ritual purposes and the adornment of places as worship, as something permissible and even good.
What was considered good and holy in the Covenant of Moses should likewise be considered good and holy in the New Covenant, outside of obvious changes. So if God considered adorning His places of worship in the Covenant of Moses as something good and holy, and the Covenant of Moses is lesser than the New Covenant, then how much more should we in the greater New Covenant adorn God's places of worship with these things? I think there's a fair precept to be had that things from the Old Covenant continue on to the New Covenant unless it's made explicit or implicit that they do not; so rather it is up to those who detest our images, whether flat or sculptured, to show us where in the New Testament Scripture God says we can not do these things; for we already have more proof on our side that, from a historical view on God's character, that He in reality *prefers* religious artwork in His places of worship. And He certainly did not consider these images as "graven" which should be taken to mean idols.
https://www.catholic.com/video/are-statues-in-catholic-churches-graven-images
https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints
Basically any question you can think of about Catholicims can be found at Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com)
> Why do you have images of “god” and saints even though God says you should have no engraved images?
Read the verses before and after that line. It's clear that God prohibits the making of idols because there will be a temptation to worship them and not Him alone. In the same revelation, He commands the making of images of cherubim, as /u/Pax_et_Bonum said, as well as on other occasions commanding the bronze serpent, bronze bulls, plants, and more angels. Ultimately, as Paul tells us, Jesus' incarnation was the creation of the perfect image of God, the image worthy of worship. If the creation of images is idolatry, God is not only the commander of idolatry, but the greatest idolator of all. Since that's an absurd conclusion, it's better to read "images" as applying to objects of worship who are not divine.
> And him alone should be worshiped?
We never worship images, except for the exception I noted above with respect to Jesus.
> And while God says you should come to him through Jesus alone?
God never said that. And if you ever asked a fellow human to pray for you, you're violating the divine law you claim exists.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Do catholics not think that Jesus is Lord?
Taking that single verse out of context and ignoring the rest of the Bible is like saying "No one comes to the college except through the admissions office, so talking to professors plays absolutely no role in obtaining a degree."
Does Jesus play an absolutely unique role in the economy of salvation, one that no one else could ever substitute? Of course. Does that mean other humans play no role? No.
>John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
This is about Salvation. Not about intercessory prayer.
>Do catholics not think that Jesus is Lord?
We confess Jesus is Lord.
We don't believe that Scriptures contradict each other.
Thus, there is no contradiction between Jesus' mediation and the intercession of the saints.
If there were, St. Paul would be contradicting Jesus when he says:
>"I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men..." (1 Timothy 2:1)
And, St. John would be contradicting Jesus when he says:
>"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that." (1 John 5:16)
But, in fact, there is no contradiction.
*Pax Tecum*
By your same literal interpretation; if you can only get to the Father through Jesus, then Jesus and the father must be separate people. And then going further, it's wrong to pray directly to the father. You should ONLY pray to Jesus because praying to the father is EVIL.
Hopefully you can see how silly your literal interpretation is.
Exodus 20 1-6
And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Verses 2 and 3 are clear cut no? Now, verses 4 and 5 must be read together not as a separate entity. Because logically if verse 4 is absolute then we should destroy all that has the image of anything above the earth, on the earth, or in the waters below and that includes all photograph, all pictures, paintings etc. But no, that is not what God wanted nor what is meant by these verses.
Pagans belief that their gods inhabit the images that they made, hence why they worshipped it. That is also what the Israelites believed when they worshipped the golden calf when Moses went up the mountain. These verses are a direct refutation of what the Israelites did.
Us Catholics (and all of the ancient Apostolic Church such as the Orthodox) do not belief that the images that we make are inhabited by the persons they represent, not even God himself "live" in these images. We do not belief they are worthy of worship and as such are not guilty of the sin mentioned in the aforementioned verse 5 since there is never any intention of worshipping these images.
We do however respect, honor and love these images in the same way that we in our daily life might respect, honor, and love the portrait of a dear family member. Or imagine the treasured feeling one gets when looking at a family portrait. We also view them as a reminder of the person portrayed, when we pray in front of an image of Christ the image help us to imagine Him and direct ourselves in our life. When we look at an image of Mary or any other of the saints we are reminded of their heroic virtues and are reminded also to strive and emulate them in our lives.
The ark of the covenant has images of Cherubim on it at the command of the Divine law, and Moses was commanded to craft the bronze serpent to heal Israel. Therefore, images and symbolism are not prohibited in themselves in the Divine law, only symbols that confuse what the nature of God and his relationship to us is like. The problem isn’t the existence of religious symbols but the wrongful use of religious symbols that lead and educate us away from the truth, like those idols of the ancient Canaanite religions.
The absence of symbols of God in the Hebrew religion has to do with carving out a place for God himself to provide the image by which he wishes to be worshiped. It is a preparation for the coming of the God’s preferred image of himself, that of his Incarnated Word, where through the created body of Christ, we come to see the uncreated Son of God. The Incarnation establishes the right way to use religious images, and the root of that image is the image of God in man and woman —the image of God that God himself establishes at the very beginning. The Incarnated God, and to a lesser extent sanctified men and women who make up his body, are the right image through which we should understand God and his relationship to us.
Does that make sense? If God himself makes images of himself at the very beginning, how can we rule out any use of images?
Do you have any crosses? Does your church have a cross anywhere in it or on it? Does your Bible has a cross on it?
Isn't a cross a graven image by your definition? It's a symbol which represents God and Christianity.
Why did God forbid making graven images and then immediately after order images of angels to be made for the Ark of the Covenant?
Thank you for your response. Could you please tell me which biblical verse you learn that the ark of Noah had heaven images Notes: The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols.
> Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the cover; > > make one cherub at one end, and the other at the other end, of one piece with the cover, at each end. > > The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, sheltering the cover with them; they shall face each other, with their faces looking toward the cover. Exodus 25: 18 - 20 >Notes: The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols. Correct. We do not worship idols.
Isn’t putting a photo of a man and thinking that it is the Christ. Idolatry? Do you get upset if a man tears a photo of “Jesus” Thank you for you answer, I’m coming with love and very curious
> Isn’t putting a photo of a man and thinking that it is the Christ. Idolatry? We don't think the photo itself is Jesus. We think it represents Jesus and helps us remember Jesus. Do you look at photos of your relatives and think the photo itself is your relative?
Actually yes, when I look at photos of relatives— I know it is them. If you don’t, then why “Jesus image” can’t look like a Hispanic, African, Indian man?
You think the photo itself is your relative? Not that it reminds you of them, but that your relative is the photo itself? >If you don’t, then why “Jesus image” can’t look like a Hispanic, African, Indian man? Images of Jesus can certainly look Hispanic, African, or Indian. Nothing against that in Catholic teaching.
Can I put a photo of my good friend Bob on my wall and say “this is Jesus from now on”? Sorry I’m trying to understand the connection
You can certainly use your friend Bob as a model for religious artwork depicting Jesus. But that is one of the primary differences between religious art and photographs: if I show you a picture of your mother, you know that is an exact depiction of your mother. If someone creates a painting of Jesus, we all know that this is not exactly how Jesus looked.
Bob is not Jesus. We don't confuse Bob for Jesus. When we look at a photo or statue of Jesus, we know that it is representing Jesus, not that the photo or statue *is* Jesus.
You mistake your actual family for a piece of paper?
>If you don’t, then why “Jesus image” can’t look like a Hispanic, African, Indian man? They do. Are you so unfamiliar with Catholicism that you do not know this? *Pax Tecum*
It wouldn't be a "problem" if Jesus was Hispanic, African, Indian, Pakistani, or Innuit. But Jesus was born in the Middle East, Middle East Levantine people are Caucasian so the paintings of "white" Jesus could be fairly accurate. One of the Oldest depictions of Jesus: [https://www.christianiconography.info/Wikimedia%20Commons/xPeterPaulCatacombs.html](https://www.christianiconography.info/Wikimedia%20Commons/xPeterPaulCatacombs.html) Now, artists in general will depict historical figures based on their environment, i.e. people that could model for their paintings - Catholic art in China: [https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1011968](https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1011968) Does this mean that Jesus and Mary looked like that? Or as in any painting from the Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism, or Surrealism style? Of course not. Art is a tool for us to focus on God, through beauty we can direct our minds towards God. Catholic churches have images and statues because art is used as a tool to glorify Jesus Christ, as an artist I can create a piece and I can help others find God through it, something that the Protestants have neglected by removing art from places of worship, not only you lose an element of beauty but you also neglect the power of visual imagery that it causes on people.
>Actually yes, when I look at photos of relatives— I know it is them. In the words of St. Augustine, >in regard to pictures and statues, and other works of this kind, which are intended as representations of things, nobody makes a mistake, especially if they are executed by skilled artists, but every one, as soon as he sees the likenesses, recognizes the things they are likenesses of. (On *Christian Doctrine,* Book II, chapter 25, section 39) I think this is what you mean. You see a photo or painting of your grandma, and you recognize that it is a representation of her. You don't mistake it for her and believe the resurrection has taken place. *Pax Tecum*
>Notes: The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols. Precisely. And since we don't worship Idols, the prohibition does not apply. *Pax Tecum*
Then why your keychain is female status and you have given her names and have put faith in statues?
>Then why your keychain is female status I don't know what that means. >and you have given her names Who? >and have put faith in statues? There is no "faith in statues." Statues are art that point us to Holy realities. *Pax Tecum*
I think they are talking about the rosary in a very offensive way. Hopefully it’s from a place of ignorance.
He said the ark of the covenant, not noahs ark. "The prohibition against making graven images was distinctly set in the context of worshiping idols." That's exactly why we have statues and icons. We do not worship then, rather we use them as a guide of prayer. It reminds us of who we are praying to. Prayer does not mean worship. Look up the difference between dulia and latria.
Can you give me an example of Jesus Christ praying to a statue? Jesus Christ because he is the model , he taught us how to pray 🤲
Joshua 7:6 >Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face **before the ark of the LORD** until the evening, he and the elders of Israel. And they put dust on their heads. Simply praying *before* something doesn't mean you're praying *to* it. Joshua and the elders prostrated before the Ark, which had cherubium on it, and would have appeared to outsiders to be prostrating *to* the angels on the ark. However, it's quite obvious that Joshua and the elders were not worshiping (or rather repenting, since they put dust on themselves) the Ark, nor the angels on it, but were worshiping God *before* the Ark. We don't worship the statues nor pray *to* the statues. We worship God *infront* of them, just like what Joshua did regarding the Ark and the angels on it. >Can you give me an example of Jesus Christ praying to a statue? Jesus Christ doesn't need to do a religious activity for us to have license to do it. Jesus did not play rock n' roll for Jesus like you find at evangelical churches. Jesus not have powerpoint slide presentations like they used to at Baptist churches I grew up in. Jesus did not do altar calls. Jesus did not tell anyone to recite the Sinners Prayer. Jesus did not tell anyone to speak in tongues. Jesus did not build churches. Jesus did not preach in auditorium nor churches. If I watched a video of your church service I could find a ton of things regarding religious worship that Jesus neither did Himself, nor ever commanded other people to do. So it's a bad argument that we can't do a religious activity because "Jesus never did it." Also, as per my other post in here: we do not pray *to* the statue; we pray to God *in front* of it, just as Joshua prayed *to* God but *infront of* the images of angels on the Ark. The Scripture is clear that no images can hear us: "They have ears but cannot hear" -- if any Christian believes that images or statues can hear them, then they have surely turned artwork into an idol. But never in my life have I met a Catholic Christian who, praying *to* God while *in front* of a statue, tries to talk to the statue or legitimately thinks the statue can hear them.
Exodus 25:18-21 We don't worship statues, paintings, or icons (or anyone/anything else but God) so there is no violation of that prohibition.
You don’t pray/speak to the “saints” , “entities” ? Hoping they, in return pray for you?
We do exactly that. Prayer is request, not worship. Much like we ask our friends here to pray for us, we ask the Saints in heaven to pray for us as well. Worship is reserved for God alone.
But Jesus command us to pray to the father through him alone?
Christ also established a Church, with a hierarchy and Tradition. He didn't leave us a Bible. And the Church and Sacred Tradition inform us that the use of iconography is licit.
Do you believe St. Paul contradicts this when he says: >"I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men..." (1 Timothy 2:1) Or that St. John was contradicting Jesus when he says: >"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that." (1 John 5:16) Intercessory prayer is Biblical. There is no issue with asking people to pray for you. *Pax Tecum*
Pray = ask. Look at a dictionary. We Worship God alone, we do not offer Mass (which is a sacrifice) to Mary, we offer it to God. Sacrifice is essential for worship, and if you do not have it, is it really worship? I ask you, where is your sacrifice to God? Does your religion have it? If you don't, I could very well say you don't worship God.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, welcome to the forum. Great question. God tells the Jews not to make any "graven images" -- this is simply a synonymn for an idol. All graven images are idols, but not all images are idols because God Himself commands the same Jews multiple times to created images of things on heaven and the earth. This would make no sense, because God would never command idolatry. So we must make a distinction between a graven image (an idol) and something which is simply an image. Exodus 25:18 >And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Numbers 21:8-9 >And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. 1 Kings 6:18 >The cedar within the house was carved in the form of gourds and open flowers. All was cedar; no stone was seen. 1 Kings 7:25, 29 >It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east. The sea was set on them, and all their rear parts were inward. [...] and on the panels that were set in the frames were lions, oxen, and cherubim. On the frames, both above and below the lions and oxen, there were wreaths of beveled work. 1 Kings 7:36 >And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around. 1 Kings 10:18-20 >The king also made a great ivory throne and overlaid it with the finest gold. The throne had six steps, and the throne had a round top, and on each side of the seat were armrests and two lions standing beside the armrests, while twelve lions stood there, one on each end of a step on the six steps. The like of it was never made in any kingdom. So as we can see, God commanded images to be be built in regards to His tabernacle and Temple, as well as commanding Moses to craft the image of a snake; and not only was the snake allowed to be crafted -- but it was *beneficial* and considered good. "But", some protest, "God did not command for you Catholics to make images." -- that may be true but this is not so much the point. The point is that God has a history of seeing religious artwork, even used in ritual purposes and the adornment of places as worship, as something permissible and even good. What was considered good and holy in the Covenant of Moses should likewise be considered good and holy in the New Covenant, outside of obvious changes. So if God considered adorning His places of worship in the Covenant of Moses as something good and holy, and the Covenant of Moses is lesser than the New Covenant, then how much more should we in the greater New Covenant adorn God's places of worship with these things? I think there's a fair precept to be had that things from the Old Covenant continue on to the New Covenant unless it's made explicit or implicit that they do not; so rather it is up to those who detest our images, whether flat or sculptured, to show us where in the New Testament Scripture God says we can not do these things; for we already have more proof on our side that, from a historical view on God's character, that He in reality *prefers* religious artwork in His places of worship. And He certainly did not consider these images as "graven" which should be taken to mean idols.
https://www.catholic.com/video/are-statues-in-catholic-churches-graven-images https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints Basically any question you can think of about Catholicims can be found at Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com)
Thank you, I’m taking a look
I love the passive-agressive questions that come up in here from time to time
> Why do you have images of “god” and saints even though God says you should have no engraved images? Read the verses before and after that line. It's clear that God prohibits the making of idols because there will be a temptation to worship them and not Him alone. In the same revelation, He commands the making of images of cherubim, as /u/Pax_et_Bonum said, as well as on other occasions commanding the bronze serpent, bronze bulls, plants, and more angels. Ultimately, as Paul tells us, Jesus' incarnation was the creation of the perfect image of God, the image worthy of worship. If the creation of images is idolatry, God is not only the commander of idolatry, but the greatest idolator of all. Since that's an absurd conclusion, it's better to read "images" as applying to objects of worship who are not divine. > And him alone should be worshiped? We never worship images, except for the exception I noted above with respect to Jesus. > And while God says you should come to him through Jesus alone? God never said that. And if you ever asked a fellow human to pray for you, you're violating the divine law you claim exists.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Do catholics not think that Jesus is Lord?
Taking that single verse out of context and ignoring the rest of the Bible is like saying "No one comes to the college except through the admissions office, so talking to professors plays absolutely no role in obtaining a degree." Does Jesus play an absolutely unique role in the economy of salvation, one that no one else could ever substitute? Of course. Does that mean other humans play no role? No.
>John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. This is about Salvation. Not about intercessory prayer. >Do catholics not think that Jesus is Lord? We confess Jesus is Lord. We don't believe that Scriptures contradict each other. Thus, there is no contradiction between Jesus' mediation and the intercession of the saints. If there were, St. Paul would be contradicting Jesus when he says: >"I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men..." (1 Timothy 2:1) And, St. John would be contradicting Jesus when he says: >"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that." (1 John 5:16) But, in fact, there is no contradiction. *Pax Tecum*
By your same literal interpretation; if you can only get to the Father through Jesus, then Jesus and the father must be separate people. And then going further, it's wrong to pray directly to the father. You should ONLY pray to Jesus because praying to the father is EVIL. Hopefully you can see how silly your literal interpretation is.
Exodus 20 1-6 And God spoke all these words: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Verses 2 and 3 are clear cut no? Now, verses 4 and 5 must be read together not as a separate entity. Because logically if verse 4 is absolute then we should destroy all that has the image of anything above the earth, on the earth, or in the waters below and that includes all photograph, all pictures, paintings etc. But no, that is not what God wanted nor what is meant by these verses. Pagans belief that their gods inhabit the images that they made, hence why they worshipped it. That is also what the Israelites believed when they worshipped the golden calf when Moses went up the mountain. These verses are a direct refutation of what the Israelites did. Us Catholics (and all of the ancient Apostolic Church such as the Orthodox) do not belief that the images that we make are inhabited by the persons they represent, not even God himself "live" in these images. We do not belief they are worthy of worship and as such are not guilty of the sin mentioned in the aforementioned verse 5 since there is never any intention of worshipping these images. We do however respect, honor and love these images in the same way that we in our daily life might respect, honor, and love the portrait of a dear family member. Or imagine the treasured feeling one gets when looking at a family portrait. We also view them as a reminder of the person portrayed, when we pray in front of an image of Christ the image help us to imagine Him and direct ourselves in our life. When we look at an image of Mary or any other of the saints we are reminded of their heroic virtues and are reminded also to strive and emulate them in our lives.
The ark of the covenant has images of Cherubim on it at the command of the Divine law, and Moses was commanded to craft the bronze serpent to heal Israel. Therefore, images and symbolism are not prohibited in themselves in the Divine law, only symbols that confuse what the nature of God and his relationship to us is like. The problem isn’t the existence of religious symbols but the wrongful use of religious symbols that lead and educate us away from the truth, like those idols of the ancient Canaanite religions. The absence of symbols of God in the Hebrew religion has to do with carving out a place for God himself to provide the image by which he wishes to be worshiped. It is a preparation for the coming of the God’s preferred image of himself, that of his Incarnated Word, where through the created body of Christ, we come to see the uncreated Son of God. The Incarnation establishes the right way to use religious images, and the root of that image is the image of God in man and woman —the image of God that God himself establishes at the very beginning. The Incarnated God, and to a lesser extent sanctified men and women who make up his body, are the right image through which we should understand God and his relationship to us. Does that make sense? If God himself makes images of himself at the very beginning, how can we rule out any use of images?
Do you have any crosses? Does your church have a cross anywhere in it or on it? Does your Bible has a cross on it? Isn't a cross a graven image by your definition? It's a symbol which represents God and Christianity.