Posted on 04/19/2017 4:25:55 AM PDT by NYer
We worship Christ and He gives us beauty in everything we do at all times, in all styles. This is why the Christian faith must be Catholic: universal across times and cultures.
When vandals destroy, we rebuild.
"So then 'faith' comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17
"Faith" does not come through ancient rocks and baroque embellishments. It comes through Christ's Word in us, which we receive by hearing His Word.
I would agree that the Word can be spoken through "things" but only in this sense. When we see a painting, a cross, a crucifix, etc., that expressed the Word of God, those pictures, images, things - explained to the hearer in terms of how they relate to the gospel, can produce faith. E.g., when a crucifix is used to explain the sacrifice and death of Jesus, the crucifix becomes a compliment to the gospel. The problem many see in Catholicism is that there are Catholics who worship the object. Words like veneration are used to explain that the objects are not being worshiped. However, when Christians see a person praying before a statue or carrying a "blessed" medal like a talisman, the veneration argument rings untrue.
You are evidently proud of your church. I would encourage you to be proud of your Christ and His greatness!
Christ is great and so His Church is great. Beauty is a necessary component of our faith.
You’re welcome.
You may find this interesting as well: https://books.logos.com/#content=/books/2460&pageOffset=330
Remember it’s not the year that’s important (as this author seems to argue for a crucifixion year of AD 29), but the timing, a Friday Crucifixion and Sunday Resurrection, is perfectly believable from a Biblical standpoint.
In other words, the calendars I provided upthread can also be supported by the section of commentary of the author above (Trench, G. H. A study of St. John’s Gospel, to which are added: I. The Julian and Jewish calendars for A.D. 27-29. II. A diary of all the events in our Lord’s ministry which are mentioned in the Gospels. III. Tables showing how the fourth Gospel dovetails with the three synoptics. London: John Murray, 1918, pp 297-302)
As to the “three days/three nights” argument I again refer to the article by Jimmy Aikin I posted upthread to which you thanked me; while again not exhaustive on the matter, it’s sufficient to demonstrate there is little historical/traditional reason to take the expression literally. And without that, and with the positive evidence like that above, there is simply no reason to adhere to a “Wednesday Crucifixion”.
I hope you find this as fascinating as I; contrary to what some claim, the Church has indeed taken into account all Biblical OT mandates while still claiming a Friday Crucifixion (as the above example illustrates).
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.