Did Catholics get their iconography from Roman paganism?

Really? I remember the Bible describing angels as concentric rotating rings and other wierd things

Most have 3 sets of wings, many are Ox, Lion, Eagle and Men, some are a combination of both, 4 heads, 6 wings

Considering that Jupiter only has an eagle but YHWH gets a human, lion, ox AND an eagle I'm gonna have to say that it was an improvement.

>However when Jews actually go to depict angels they do not do it the way Christians did.
Eh? what about the Cherbuim on the Ark of the Covenant?

Seraphim have six wings in Isaiah's vision, yeah.

*cherubim

This is a Romanesque (a Medieval style) Western Rite Orthodox icon. It features the sort of depictions you're talking about.

I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if European Christians took an artistic influence from Pagan Europe, but the basic ideas are probably from Judaism and Christianity themselves, just viewed through a European lens.

Yeah, but did they come in that "human with only one set of wings" form? Not trying to be snide, legit question.

>Yeah, but did they come in that "human with only one set of wings" form? Not trying to be snide, legit question.
Yeah, Cherubim were always depicted that way, including those on the top of the Ark of the Covenant.

All of Christianity - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - borrows heavily from pagan (specifically, Attic mystery rites) and neo-Platonic ideas, due to the influence of Paul of Tarsus, who most certainly was not an observant Jew nor a Pharisee.

Modern Christianity owes more to Paul than the historical Jesus.

I though Cherubim were those weird heads with wings that had a lion on the other side or some shit?

How do you know? I thought the Ark of the Covenent was never found

>Attic mystery rites
you mean Mithraitic?

No, Attic.

Attis was a deity/mythological figure around which a mystery religion formed, related to the Eleusinian mysteries (another mystery religion focused on Demeter and Persephone which focused heavily on an afterlife). This Attis was a god of vegetation, who in his mutilation, death, and resurrection came to represent the changes of the seasons.

Central to Attic rites was the belief that upon dying, the blood of Attis had 'redeemed the Earth', as well as the eating of foodstuffs symbolic of Attis' flesh and blood (the Earth).

Ezekiel depicts them that way, but he also has them with six wings, four used to cover their body (like Seraphim). The Ark has them just their wings over their heads, touching, and having six wings doing that doesn't seem practical. 1 Kings 6:27 also gives a description indicating but two wings. Also Ezekiel describes his Cherubim with multiple faces, whereas the Ark has the Cherubim with one face each (saying their faces are to look at the mercy seat). So we're talking about different depictions here.

It's certainly a hypothesis, but it's based on the fact that throughout the Torah, angels are very anthropomorphic, even passing as humans. The other depictions don't appear until much later.

It's almost as if they're both indo-European religions which all feature an old man as the elder/king god (yahweh, odin, Jupiter/zeus) with a son revered in his own right to almost the same level of worship, often a patron deity (jesu, thor, Mars). Its almost like they have to battle evil (satan, fenrir/jormugandr, chronos/titans), and they have the same holidays (christmas, yule, saturnalia and way more)

>Jews
>Indo-European
Pick one and only one

They got their theology and church structure from Roman paganism

>Theology

We are silly demons that only want to go to hell to live with Satan and do demonic sexual things, we only care about condemning ourselves and don't listen to reason, science, or saving souls.

And we enter the family by saying: Save me Satan.

We intend to enjoy hell.

Because Satan is the bad guy and totally not the saviour. This is a notion hard to understand when a devil is in the equation.

>When Jesus asks you where the Roman Empire went

>Saul of Tarsus
>of the tribe of Benjamin
>student of Gamaliel
>not a Hebrew of Hebrews

All Christianity is; is paganism with the face of Jesus Christ.

Christianity is unlike any other religion on the planet.

It's not like Jupiter was commanding people to love their enemies. . .

> Jupiter
How about you look more deeply in the major religions of the world.

Loving your enemies is a stupid idea. You should oppose your enemies in any way that you are able and then destroy them if possible.

>It's not like Jupiter was commanding people to love their enemies. . .
so christianity is special just because it has some maxims that appeal to you

No, it's special because it's God and the way it interacts with his subjects and creation is special.

I have and I can tell you with 100% certainty that Christianity is unique.

No other religion claims that the Almighty Creator of the Universe was incarnate in the human body of a historical person.

No other the religion has a centuries spanning prophetic tradition predicting its advent.

No other religion has influenced global history to such a degree.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Him.

Yeah, no. The christian god has no verifiable evidence for it's existence.

>No other religion claims that the Almighty Creator of the Universe was incarnate in the human body of a historical person.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

>No other the religion has a centuries spanning prophetic tradition predicting its advent.

Except for Islam and Zoroastrianism

>No other religion has influenced global history to such a degree.

Except for the above mentioned, and Hinduism, and Buddhism, and all the polytheisms of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome

Did you find this out all on yourself user? Impressive you must be a child genius.

Also implying that's a problem. It's art, not theology. They could have been influenced by Egyptian and Babylonian and there still wouldn't be any problem.

Yeah, only one religion is delusional enough to jump through mental gymnastics trying to convince people that they have one god despite that god referring to 3 other beings.

>Christianity isn't special
>Yes it is
>Yeah well you can't prove it's real!
>The Trinity is a theological problem
Hello /r/eddit

oh your fullfilled prophecies are nothing but horseshit. prime example is the emmanuel prophecy which isn't even about Jesus and only speaks of the woman being a young girl, not a virgin. a personal favorite of mine is the prophecy of Judas's death in Potter's field which is a bizzare splicing of Jeremiah and Zechariah

Fuck off with your shit. I was raised non-Christian (Singapore Chink) and hearing that Trinity bullshit from Filipino monkeys is the height of hypocrisy and ludicrousness Christians ever sold the world with.

>Emmanuel
>God with us
>Not about Jesus

>what is mental gymnastics

It's not. Read 1st John and the Gospels. There's literally nothing wrong with it. It's a false issue raised by Muslims as a desperate grasp for legitimacy as an Abrahamic religion

(You)

Kings claiming to be representatives of deities from polytheistic pantheons is entirely unlike a single Creator God being incarnate in a carpenter.

Furthermore, to claim that these various paganisms have influenced world history to the same extent as Christianity is ludicrous. All those cults were/are confined to a geographical area whereas as Christianity has a strong presence on every continent.

>read in the Bible how the Bible proves that the Bible is accurate

Literally cult tier logic

No, it's
>Read the Bible to understand what the Bible says
You said
>I don't understand the Trinity
I said
>Read where the idea of the Trinity comes from so you can understand it

>Furthermore, to claim that these various paganisms have influenced world history to the same extent as Christianity is ludicrous.

No, it really isn't, since that influence includes the influence it had on Christianity itself.

Or were Socrates, Plato and Aristotle secret time traveling Christians?

He fabricated those credentials, as his writings show a complete lack of even surface-level Jewish theology. There's a reason that the original apostles of Jesus disliked Paul, and considered him to be an usurper.

Not to mention his odd inconsistencies (claiming to be a devout Pharisee but in the employ of the Sadduccees, inventing stories about persecution of 'Christians' in Damascus, etc.)

>ONE GOD
>ONE
>NUMERO UNO
>一
>I.
>AYY LMAO WE"RE THREE
Maybe Jews are good in math as per the meme. They didn't buy into your bullshit.

>where the idea of the Trinity comes from
The Council of Nycea then?

Reminder that majority of Christendom once subscribed to the non-trinitarian arian "hesesy", but the trinitarian party was more well connected.

>>I don't understand the Trinity

As if that's very hard. Last time I checked, 3 wasn't 1 or vice versa.

Anyway, have fun with your incoherent cult shit, I'm not going to waste any more time on it

Cont.

In imposed it on everyone through bolshevik-style "democratic centralism" aka ecumenical council.

Reminder that Christianity was the Bolshevism of the Roman Empire.

I agree that Christianity preserved the best aspects of Classical philosophy and it is thanks to Christianity that most people even know about those belief systems.

>h-he's lying!!1! oy veyyyyyyyyy!!11!

Also, Peter and Paul reconciled.

the prophecy wasn't about the Messiah. it was a prophecy being used for a sign to King Hezekiah, thus implying that it would not only happen in his lifetime but relatively soon. and soon after we have a child being born who has no reason to be mentioned besides to fullfill that prophecy. he serves no other purpose in Isaiah and if he didn't fullfill the prophecy it would have been nonsensical to even mention him. Most christian scholars acknowledge this but then go on to say this is a "double prophecy" even though there is nothing in the text to support a 2nd fulfillment since as I mentioned earlier this was a sign for Hezekiah that had nothing to do with the Messiah and there is nothing in the text that says it will be fullfilled twice

>Peter and Paul reconciled

No they didn't. That is a later tradition that was invented to reconcile Paul to Peter & James , and more for artistic purposes, since artists liked to portray the 'reconciliation'. The Jewish-Christians (and their later descendants, the Ebionites) - who revered James and Peter - thoroughly considered Paul to be a madman and demonically possessed, indicative of the reality that there never was a reconciliation.

No reconciliation is ever mentioned even by Paul or his epistles.

Also, Paul was a huge liar. Claiming to be a very devout Pharisee, yet for some reason working as a Sadduccee lapdog? Or the impossibility of him being sent to Damascus by the Jews to arrest "Christians" - Damascus, a city in Greater Syria where the Jewish authorities had no jurisdiction whatsoever (they barely had any jurisdiction in Judea itself), to persecute a group which was still so thoroughly Jewish that its one and only differentiating mark was holding Yeshua to be a prophet.

You're an idiot for believing a liar, and not even a good one.

Isn't it obvious?

>Jews having a handle on reality.

>Dude the essence of God is material lmao
Jesus guys, try a little harder

I think you're talking about Elijah's supernatural chariot. I don't think that was intended to depict an angelic being.

It's false.

Matthew depicts the Lion
Mark depicts the Ox
Luke depicts the Man
John depicts the Eagle

A griffin?

The blueprints are in the bible; the wings of the angels cover the mercy seat. I believe the ark has been found but not recovered, as the area is in muslim hands.

>Read 1st John and the Gospels.
Original versions or those that were later doctored by church to push the trinity idea?

Pretty sure he means the vision of Ezekiel.

Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin, as he assented to the murder of Stephen.

Only members of the Sanhedrin get to vote on such things.

Saul was a better Jew than any Jew living since Saul, and he counted it all as loss.

Catholicism.

Learn to tell the two apart. It could save your life.

>I know, I'll post a meme to discredit him and pretend to know more about the history of the new testament than he does. When he doesn't have a response other than "you're wrong" then I'll look more intelligent

Jupiter = Nimrod

Your understanding of these things is false.

None of this shit is supported by Pauline writings. It's all later fanfiction by Luke.

The universe He created, and the life He led here on earth, and His resurrection, suffice.

Any prophecy in the qur'an was stolen from the bible; Mohammad made no prophecies and performed no miracles.

>Jupiter = Nimrod

It's a double prophecy, which you would know if you knew God.

Unto us a child is born: Isaiah and his wife have a baby.

Unto us a son is given: Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, is given to the world for redemption.

The miraculous fulfillment of the first tells the godly that the second will also come true; that Isaiah is a true prophet of God.

God has more dimensions to Him than we have to us.

...and the Word became flesh and dwelt with us.

...and the Word was God.

So instead of losing with dignity you are going to just spew greentext?

The bible tells the story of the earth from beginning to end; only God can see the end from the beginning; the bible literally proves it's from God.

Saul/Paul was a liar.

His writings show no understanding of even basic Jewish theology, and borrow more from Neo-Platonism and Greek mystery religions. Even his understanding of current events is bad: see, for example, his declaration of being a devout Pharisee, but being the lapdog of a Sadduccee, or his error about the Jewish authorities having jurisdiction outside of Judea to arrest individuals in Damascus.

There's a reason Peter & James disliked Paul, and that's saying it lightly.

In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to Paul's letters as γραφὰς ("scriptures") which indicates he viewed them as authoritative. I hope next time you'll make sure to have your facts straight before you start accusing people.

Until then, I'll be praying for you.

They lived 1200 years after the beginning of the bible was written.

It's shocking they didn't have a better grasp of the issues.

It would be a crushing argument if Peter actually had written a piece in question.

Yes, because he demonstrated that he knew Jesus better than they did, having spent three years with Jesus in Arabia, and that he knew more about the New Covenant than they did, again having spent three years with Jesus in Arabia.

He also called them out for being Judaizers and hypocrites.

And yet, at the end of his life, this is what Peter said about Paul:

2 Peter 3
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Father is God.
Son is God.
Spirit is God.
There is one God.

It's not really that difficult.

I know that is what you think and I have already addressed that herebut I don't think anything is going to get through to you when your defense against my argument is that I "don't know God"

Remember that time when Pagan Rome was tolerant of all religions within the empire?

Remember that time when Christian Rome literally massacred so many pagans and destroyed so many of their sacred things and places that they effectively wiped Paganism from the face of the Earth?

Yes, Constantine and Arius were tight, which is why it behooves you to learn to tell the difference between Catholics and Christians.

Constantine brought Arius back into the Roman fold, and favored him and his ideas over actual Christians.

...

>what is interpolation?

Jupiter......... = ............Nimrod.

Your basis for discrediting the bible is your opinion, which you are welcome to.

It just happens to be absurd, and your jealousy oozes from it like leprosy.

It was necessary to secure unity within the church. Pagans would never accept christians within them as shown by millions of christians who were martyred within first few centuries of its existence.

>refering me to the post I replyed to

>It just happens to be absurd
How exacly? What proof do we have that Luke didn't pull all of this stright out his ass?

>Losing

Acts 22, literally quoting Paul.

“Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now.” 2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent.

Then he said: 3 “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
...
And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’