And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter...

>look father, i posted it again!

>Christ was an adulterer, a fornicator, a sinner, a murderer and an evildoer
>I'm Christian btw xP
'no'

You're right, you're not Christian

...

No, the idea that he was talking about himself is purely modernist. Greek exegetes who grew up speaking Greek did not interpret it that way, and I'm pretty sure they knew the language better than we do; they also weren't Latins, so no pro-Rome bias.

>look father i posted it again xdddd

Popes don't require you to kneel before them, and they certainly don't require you to hold your hands like that (that form of supplication actually evolved in the Middle Ages, as a vassal would hold his hands like that to express subservience; it later found its way into prayer).

Some people do kneel before the Pope, but that's their thing, it's nothing to do with Papal policy.

The pope doesn't even discourage them

Yes, well he absolutely should, you're not supposed to kneel to clergy. Even in Holy Confession we don't kneel toward clergy, we kneel toward an icon and the priest stands to the side.

Nonetheless, the most you can fault them for here is not up to Peter in standard (big surprise). They don't encourage or make it a standard. You also have to allow that in the West, unlike the East, the Pope became a political office, a ruler of a state: until modern times, kneeling to a ruler was pretty normal; even after it was in vogue for rulers to be gods, it was still rampant. So it became a policy with the Pope, because he was a ruler.

Most church fathers, including Augustine, interpreted the rock as reffering to Christ

even after it *stopped being vogue

Note that in the Old Testament, kneeling to the king is also a thing

>we kneel toward an icon
That's just as bad
>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

>Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

>And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6

He did, but not until much later in life. Originally he said it was Peter, but toward the end of his life, he said he was no longer sure, and it might refer to Christ or Peter, and so the reader should decide for himself.

>Most
[citation needed]

Read what Scripture says and stop the mental gymnastics.

See

Nothing wrong with venerating icons, see Joshua 7:6.

The ancient Hebrews did not have a problem with images in their temples. If you care to look up the ancient synagogue of Dura-Europos (since destroyed by Daesh), you will see that it was covered with images from the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible itself describes numerous images in places of worship (Exodus 25:19-20, Exodus 26:1, Exodus 26:31, 1 Kings 6:23-29, just like Orthodox temples today, the Hebrew Temple was supposed to be like being in heaven, hence all the angels). Now let's examine the word, used in Exodus 20:4, often translated as "likeness" or "form" is תְּמוּנָה (temunah); the Septuagint's equivalent to this is εἶδος (eidos), this is the term Plato is so fond of, and it is generally translated in his works as "form". This is *not* the same term used for likeness is many other parts of the Bible. For instance, the word translated as likeness in Genesis 1:26 is דְּמוּת (demuth), or דָּמָה (damah) in verb form--this term is also often translated as "similitude" in the King James Bible, such as in Hosea 12:10; the Greek equivalent to this is ὁμοίωμα (homoioma). If we look at how these words are used, the distinction is readily apparent: prophets often used the term "demuth" when describing what their visions looked like (Ezekiel 10:21, for instance), whereas temunah is used to mean a form (man is made in the likeness of God, not in the form of God) such as in Job 4:16, Psalms 17:15 and Deuteronomy 4:12, this term is often used as a stand-in for the face of God, which in Orthodox theology is God's uncreated grace, which is fully and truly God, and which we can behold (unlike God's essence, which is infinitely transcendent and beyond all creatures), it is *form* as opposed to the *simulacrum*.
cont

Now the term translated as "graven image" (or "idol" in other parts) is the word פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), the Greek equivalent of this is the term εἴδωλον (eidolon), which is the source of the English word "idol"; it comes from the aforementioned "eidos". An eidolon is an avatar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition) Now this term is very distinct from צֶ֫לֶם (tselem), which is word translated as "image" in Genesis 1:26--the Greek equivalent here is εἰkών (eikón), source of the English word "icon"; you would used the term icon to describe someone's reflection, but you would never use it to describe someone's avatar (idol). While idolatry (idol + latria) is wrong, beholding icons is spiritually advisable, it's not just a matter of ornamentation, it's far more important. The more you behold something like pornography, the more harmful it is to you spiritually, but the more behold something like holy icons, the more beneficial it is to you spiritually. "The lamp of the body is the eye! If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" [Matthew 6:22-23, Orthodox translation]. Everything we see affects our spiritual health, either positively, or harmfully, and icons are crucial among the positive things. You are what you see, so to speak.

tl;dr an icon is a reflection of something, an idol is intended as consubstantial with what it depicts.

Nvm I read "the idea that he wasn't* talking about himself"

...

Wasn't Peter and rock the same word in Greek?

So in effect Jesus was saying, upon Peter I build this Church.

English translations are just bad.

You'd think if there were exceptions to the 2nd commandment God would mention it in the 2nd commandment.

No. Petros was the Greek word for rock

The Greek word translated to Peter, Petros, meant rock. But the 2nd use of rock is Petra in this verse.

The point is that an icon isn't a פֶּ֫סֶל, it's a צֶ֫לֶם, which is not even mentioned in the second commandment. I just related the major distinction between the terms.

meant for
That's because Peter is a man, so his appellation is going to be the masculine case.

>“You shall not make for yourself a carved 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 nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

This commandment is clearly addressing the tendency for Hebrews to worship idols during the time of Moses. By not having these images around, there would not be any temptation to worship false gods.

Do you think you connect with the divine, angelic or saintly through the icon?

What's not an argument? Haven't you read the rest of the Book of Exodus? Of course you haven't, you're an anti-Catholic atheist shitposter from /pol/ with no biblical knowledge whatsoever.

ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

>carved
Mistranslation. It should say graven.
>This commandment is clearly addressing the tendency for Hebrews to worship idols during the time of Moses.
The Ten Commandments are part of the Moral Law, they are eternal.

Only as much as I connect through my tongue when I sing hymns.

>666
False prophet exposed!

You have to be 18+ to post here.

He was referring to the truth. The truth is solid like a rock, the church is built upon the truth, it is stable and will not fall away. See Truthcontest The present with religion, new revelations have been recently uncovered.

No.

So then you can't connect with God except with an idol?

I'm not going to keep up this discussion if you cannot distinguish between idol and icon and continue to use inflammatory terms. I will be happy to answer you if you will actually use the term that applies here in both Greek and Hebrew.

So that's a yes. God won't be to pleased with idolatry.

Jesus asked for a confession.

Peter gave it in these words- "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."

And this confession was the rock on which he declared that he would build his church

>icon is a reflection of something, an idol is intended as consubstantial with what it depicts.
So i guess Hindus aren't idolaters. They view their idols as reflections of gods, not as gods themselves.

Read

>literally adding the word Peter to Luke 10:16

If they are part of the moral law in the way you are describing, then why did the ark of the covenant have cherub on the exterior?

Why didn't God make an exception like you claim there should be in that commandment?

Isn't that contradictory for God to tell you not to make any graven images whatsoever then tell the Jews to make them on the ark?

Is there an issue?

You're begging the question and aren't actually engaging anything I'm saying. If you are going to insist iconography is idolatry, you must rebut this

If you cannot directly engage with this and rebut it, then you are conceding the point. If you cannot rebut but refuse to concede the point, then it is fruitless to engage with you, since you don't engage back.

No, if they have a firm theology which says the images aren't consubstantial, then they're icons, not idols. But heathen icons aren't okay either.

Rev 22:18
The cherubim are symbolic of God's presence with Israel. The cherubim are the guardians of Heaven, so they guard God's house. It's symbolism, not idolatry.

btw, in Orthodoxy, when you pray to God with your eyes shut, you are not supposed to picture anything. This is because it is easy to confuse the image of your minds eye with Christ, which is idolatry; you start to think you are actually seeing him. So picturing him inside your prayer while you pray is strictly prohibited. We take this very seriously.

So it's okay when you do it?
Do you listen to what you say? Who believes an image actually is the thing it depicts except the most primitive of savages?

All icons are symbolism, buddy.

>you start to think you are actually seeing him
Do you really think that is a natural develepment, or is it related to the concept of Prelest?

Then it doesn't reflect what it's depicting.

Yeah, just like it's okay to sing Christian hymns in worship, but wrong to sing heathen hymns in worship.

>Who believes an image actually is the thing it depicts except the most primitive of savages?
You might say the same about human sacrifice, but that happened a lot in the bronze age.

It can be prelest, but it also is just something that can naturally happen when you're really emotionally involved in your prayers. The image might just pop in there and you feel ecstatic at the time and think you are beholding the face of God. That is why spiritual elders are so critical, to talk about your prayer life with, especially if you start seeing things during prayer, they can keep you from getting carried away and thinking you're seeing visions like prophets do.

All symbols reflect what they are symbols of. That's the point of a symbol.

That is one of the points of religious art, the other is to depict a scene or tell a story.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

>and think you are beholding the face of God.
This is something we actively strive to do btw, but it's not like seeing a human face, it's experiencing God's energies directly But you need a spiritual elder to guide you in this experience

>Rev 22:18
Bait? Do you even know what parentheses are used for?

>All symbols reflect what they are symbols of. That's the point of a symbol.
Did you forget what i just said about the cherubim?
They didn't symbolize themselves. That would be idolatry.
They didn't depict a scene or tell a story. They symbolized God's presence.

...

>They didn't symbolize themselves. That would be idolatry.
So the Ark didn't symbolize anything, but was bowed to for itself (Joshua 7:6)?

>Christ was an adulterer, a fornicator, a sinner, a murderer and an evildoer
t. Martin Luther Yet you still love him. Wow. Proddies are truly lost.

The Ark symbolized Heaven.

They don't depict what you might see in Heaven?

Why would God want cherubim to symbolize him when that is "idolatry" in your view? God shouldn't want any artwork on the ark in your view since all religious art is graven and forbidden.

That's in reference to him becoming sin on the cross. He doesn't literally mean that you retard.

The great thing about Christianity is that unlike Romanists, we understand that our church leaders are mere men and ultimately only the Word of God has any real authority.

Martin Luther said the Devil tries to torment us by telling us not to sin and to feel contrition for our sins, so we ought to sin to spite him.

Heaven is not God! Why are you worshiping Heaven?

/end sarcasm

>They don't depict what you might see in Heaven?
They depicted it, they were symbolic of something else however.

>Why would God want cherubim to symbolize him when that is "idolatry" in your view? God shouldn't want any artwork on the ark in your view since all religious art is graven and forbidden.
That's not what i said, but i guess in your view the 2nd commandment was just a prank bro!

>That's in reference to him becoming sin on the cross.
Seems like these are sins ascribed to Christ, not sins ascribed others Christ accepted unto himself.

wew
ewe
wew

>Martin Luther said the Devil tries to torment us by telling us not to sin
[citation needed]
>to feel contrition for our sins
You shouldn't. Contrition implies penance.

Jewish Tetragrammaton is practically their equivalent of an icon

And it is merely a set of words which cannot be defiled and even a piece of paper with said word, cannot be simply disposed of

I already stated that that commandment was addressing the previous transgressions of the Jewish people where they worshiped false gods that they fashioned graven images of.

Literally right before saying it he said "Christ took upon himself all our sin"

Moral law = eternal

>[citation needed]
"Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, aye, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you, “Do not drink,” answer him, “I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.” One must always do what Satan forbids. What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me. Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever. We, whom the devil thus seeks to annoy, should remove the whole Decalogue from our hearts and minds."

>You shouldn't. Contrition implies penance.
Ah, right, we might end up being the Publican instead of the Pharisee if we were contrite.

The LORD is the LORD.

it wasn't in any context, it's from Table Talks

>That's in reference to him becoming sin on the cross
No, since as he clarified in the second quote: "For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandonned by God for a short time? Psalms 8:6"

As for the first quote...:
>“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has he been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
(Table Talk , Weimar edition, vol. 2., no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532; Wiener, p. 33).

...GOOD LUCK WITH THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS!

Why are a set of words that point to him is treated as holy?

That practically amounts to word worship by Protestant logic

We love our Daddy's name.

Psalms 18:6*

You are missing the point of the commandment. Sometimes you need to use common sense in your reading comprehension.

Why does the commandment state that our god is a jealous god?
Because the worship of other gods is wrong. Because the worship of other gods is wrong, the creation of idols of these gods is prohibited.

Unless the image is being worshipped or viewed of as legitimate, there is no sin.

>"Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, aye, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you, “Do not drink,” answer him, “I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.” One must always do what Satan forbids. What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me. Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever. We, whom the devil thus seeks to annoy, should remove the whole Decalogue from our hearts and minds."
He makes a good point, if we delude ourselves into thinking we may not sin we will fall into what you call prelest.

>Ah, right, we might end up being the Publican instead of the Pharisee if we were contrite.
The publican is repentent, not penetent.

Because giving worship to anything other than God is sinful. Our God shares his glory with no one.

>"For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandonned by God for a short time? Psalms 8:6"
Literally proving my point.

Exactally! So creating an image of angels or saints and not worshipping them is not sinful!

Glad we can agree again!

Well then do Protestants treat the name of Yahweh as so holy you cannot say it in front of heathens or risk defiling it?

Or even risk saying the name itself?

>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

>He makes a good point, if we delude ourselves into thinking we may not sin we will fall into what you call prelest.
I think you need to re-read him, because there was nothing there about presuming your are sinless. He said "We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all." and that he would like to sin and not even be conscious of it in order to spite the Devil. That has nothing to do with thinking yourself sinless.

>The publican is repentent, not penetent.
etymonline.com/index.php?term=penitence

The Publican is CONTRITE, which you just said isn't good.

>"We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all."
That's true. Like i said, he makes a good point.

>etymonline.com/index.php?term=penitence

>The Publican is CONTRITE, which you just said isn't good.
Penetance involves doing works to make things right.