"Therefore" what? I'm not going to play run/fetch. If there is something you wish to actually say in establishing some "therefore", then please feel free to do so.
From your discourse here, you certainly appear to be playing run/fetch. And not for the Christian side.
But now we seem to moved on to seraphim without examining why the serpent on the staff was not prohibited. There is a key stipulation which is the crux of the prohibition of making images. That might be a good place to start, if you wish to build some thesis.
Your position appears to be that there are no serpents in Heaven. I pointed out that there are seraphim. Your position is wrong.
Avoidance of my other statements or questions does not strengthen your position.
Yeah, so how's it feel to be yourself subjected to it?
Don't confuse opposition to portions of Romish dogma with opposition to "the Christian side", which I'll go ahead and interperate to mean the worship or approach to the heavenly Creator through the sacrfice of Christ, if that limited of a thumbnail description could suffice for the moment.
Your position appears to be that there are no serpents in Heaven. I pointed out that there are seraphim. Your position is wrong.
That makes little sense. Perhaps you are confusing or mixing "my position" too fully with what others here are conversing with you over. I merely and too briefly pointed out there were no serpents in heaven (at one point interupting in your own discussion with others here)...though there are of course those serpents which slither around on the earth, to which consideration towards, I must confess my brief comment was woefully incomplete...for I never followed up upon what that raised serpent was, with all the world only centuries after it's symbolic first use, eventually finding out the fuller meaning of.
To speak crudely, it was sin on a stick. Christ made sin for us. And they gazed upon Him whom they had pierced...
...which I'll offer as being behind the reason for my saying there be no serpents in heaven. That snake, died. At and after the Resurrection, well...then Jesus was back to His old self, for it most certainly was not sin that defeated sin & death, no sir, even though there for some few hours (it got really dark outside at midday!) He was made sin. Like Yogi Berra says, "Ya' could look it up." Just the search terms "he was made sin for us", I'm confident, would google 'on down and check out the show well enough (bring the needed scripture passage, from Paul, of course).
Otherwise, though I've not attempted to much follow your present conversation here with others (remember I originally told you I had little interest in it?), but from briefly glancing at things...it doesn't seem as if you brought the prohibition I mentioned, under re-examination (perhaps I missed it) which was offered as suggestion for starting point. It must all be judged in the light of that prohibition, doesn't it?
But the personal criticisms included in the comment to which I here reply... call for some reply (at risk of leading to further disrailment of discussion) while passing through briefly here on my way to other things.
Isn't that just peachy. Play a tune, and I don't dance, all of a sudden I'm some bad guy. Play a tune and I do bring something of strength, it doesn't do me any good either, for if it's strong enough, it'll just be ignored, then some one else will come along and shoot spitwads at it (but never approach and touch the substance of it), just offer other distractions, exceptions, and more distractions, with those themselves all too frequently containing their own errors of assumption & presumption...amid lack of inclusion of proper identification of elements.
...Like serephim being held as example [of graven image]... I could go on & on concerning those, the ark, the taberbacle[tent] and the symbolic meanings fulfilled and seemingly changed by Christ, but not changed, for the meaning and proper applications were there all along, here and little, there a little, but I won't attempt going further into such, for the time being.
If you're looking for the truth of the matter, don't mistake my present lack of interest, or half-hearted semi-interest (in this discussion) for anything like "victory" in what I'm not too interested in for the moment, to more fully address.
Meaning...sometimes ya' just gotta let your own comments stand as is, and not be badgering for reply, not reading too much into either getting reply and result, or not. I have to do that myself, every single day on this forum. I'm still waiting for two simple questions to be answered, by one whom claims they'll "honestly answer, if honestly asked"...which sort of thing comes from the factory with a built-in escape clause, I guess.
I mention that discussion I was taking part of, and will return to, for if I am to have any sort of "position" here that you indicate needs strengthening...then "my position" begins right around there.