OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Topic started by: Alfred Persson on August 02, 2010, 11:21:54 PM

Title: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 02, 2010, 11:21:54 PM
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible. God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton


Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God; 2)The Word became male human flesh.

Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude and making Him like His creation. It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.

Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.

Contrary to John of Damascus' citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):

Abraham planted a grove

Gen 21:33 "Then Abraham planted a field at the Well of Oath, and there he called on the name of the Lord."-Orthodox Study Bible

33. Abraham planted a grove—Hebrew, “of tamarisks,” in which sacrificial worship was offered, as in a roofless temple.
[1]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Ge 21:33). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Jacob set up a pillar

Gen 18:16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "The Lord is in this place, and I did not know it."
Gen 18:17 So he was afraid and said "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."
Gen 18:18 Now Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone he put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it.-Orthodox Study Bible

This veneration was not acceptable to God as He later forbade both in Deuteronomy 16:21f

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: augustin717 on August 02, 2010, 11:48:08 PM
I
Quote
believe they are why we were run out of the Middle East. Don't reply to that here, do so on the thread I will now post.
You were not run out of the Middle East for you and your heretical, restaurationist delusion  were never there, to begin with.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 02, 2010, 11:48:37 PM
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible. God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton


Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God; 2)The Word became male human flesh.

Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude and making Him like His creation. It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.

Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.

Contrary to John D's citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):

Abraham planted a grove

Gen 21:33 "Then Abraham planted a field at the Well of Oath, and there he called on the name of the Lord."-Orthodox Study Bible

33. Abraham planted a grove—Hebrew, “of tamarisks,” in which sacrificial worship was offered, as in a roofless temple.
[1]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Ge 21:33). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Jacob set up a pillar

Gen 18:16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "The Lord is in this place, and I did not know it."
Gen 18:17 So he was afraid and said "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."
Gen 18:18 Now Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone he put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it.-Orthodox Study Bible

This veneration was not acceptable to God as He later forbade both in Deuteronomy 16:21f

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.


I see your rantings, but I don't see any of the exegesis of our Father among the Saints, St. John of Damascus.  Maybe you should first read what you deny, so you don't look ridiculous.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 02, 2010, 11:50:00 PM
I
Quote
believe they are why we were run out of the Middle East. Don't reply to that here, do so on the thread I will now post.
You were not run out of the Middle East for you and your heretical, restaurationist delusion  were never there, to begin with.
You beat me to the punch.

Btw,us Orthodox, Alfred, are still there.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2010, 12:02:22 AM
From the proselytising thread:

Quote
Look for my thread on icons. I view them as the Early Byzantines did, they are idolatrous.

Catacomb icons, anyone? The church at Dura Europos? the writings of Sts Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Chrysostom, and many others, including one of the very earliest saints, Dionysius the Areopagite, all of whom defend iconography?

Your grasp of history is quite lacking, my dear Alfred.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 12:07:33 AM
I see your rantings, but I don't see any of the exegesis of our Father among the Saints, St. John of Damascus.  Maybe you should first read what you deny, so you don't look ridiculous.

Not I who appears ridiculous.

Trust me, I've been called worse and it brings me joy:

 22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake.
 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 NKJ)

Won't anyone address my argument?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 12:12:47 AM
I love the bottom line, and if I go off on tangents before reaching it, I feel so unsatisfied.
Well, I for one am still a bit confused on what your bottom line is.  You seem to be saying that you'd be Orthodox if it weren't for our generally negative view of proselytizing.  Is that about right?  But then you also mention all these other reasons you wouldn't be Orthodox.  Right?  So your bottom line seems to be merely informing us that you don't plan to be Orthodox.  Does that effectively sum it up?  You started a thread for this?  You joined a forum for this?

When I let my apologetic loose, I be proselytizing!!! I don't debate to lose

Yet I get a picture that you often have to take your tools and go home.


Quote
...If you can't handle that, ban me now.

Enough of the bravado. Actually say something, or take your martyr complex elsewhere.


Ok, you asked for it.
::) LOL.

Quote

Look for my thread on icons. I view them as the Early Byzantines did, they are idolatrous.

Early Byzantines? Are those the characters the Humanists were thinking of when they invented the term "Byzantine," at the same time they were inveting your dogmas?

Quote
I believe they are why we were run out of the Middle East.
The iconoclasts came and went, and the Iconophiles, i.e. the Orthodox remained.  In fact, this was the Empire of the Romans under the iconoclasts:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/ByzantineEmpire717%2Bextrainfo%2Bthemes.PNG)
and then under their successors, the Orthodox Macedonian Dynasty,
(http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Map_Byzantine_Empire_1025-en.svg/300px-Map_Byzantine_Empire_1025-en.svg.png) or with less detail
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/ByzantineEmpire1025AD2lightpurple.PNG)
Hmm. That looks a tad bigger. If the Romans got kicked out of the Middle East, it had nothing to do with icons.  Quite the opposite.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 03, 2010, 12:18:34 AM
Won't anyone address my argument?

I would, but I'm intimidated by your brilliance.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 12:21:42 AM
Won't anyone address my argument?

I would, but I'm intimidated by your brilliance.

I apologize.

Perhaps this then:

I've heard folks get irrational when you attack their idols, they respond to reasoned argument with reviling etc.

Is that true?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 12:23:28 AM
I see your rantings, but I don't see any of the exegesis of our Father among the Saints, St. John of Damascus.  Maybe you should first read what you deny, so you don't look ridiculous.

Not I who appears ridiculous.

Trust me, I've been called worse and it brings me joy:

 22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake.
 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 NKJ)

Won't anyone address my argument?
St. John already has.  You invoked his name to smear him.  Numbers 12:8

Here.  I practically have to put the nipple in your mouth:
Three treatises on the divine images By John (of Damascus, Saint.), Andrew Louth
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_U1mtafEPMC&pg=PA90&dq=John+of+Damascus+on+the+divine+images+4:15&hl=en&ei=65hXTM3QBIyJnQfpnM3YCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 12:30:12 AM
I see your rantings, but I don't see any of the exegesis of our Father among the Saints, St. John of Damascus.  Maybe you should first read what you deny, so you don't look ridiculous.

Not I who appears ridiculous.

Trust me, I've been called worse and it brings me joy:

 22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake.
 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 NKJ)

Won't anyone address my argument?
St. John already has.  You invoked his name to smear him.  Numbers 12:8

Here.  I practically have to put the nipple in your mouth:
Three treatises on the divine images By John (of Damascus, Saint.), Andrew Louth
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_U1mtafEPMC&pg=PA90&dq=John+of+Damascus+on+the+divine+images+4:15&hl=en&ei=65hXTM3QBIyJnQfpnM3YCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thanks anyway...

I didn't post for links.

I want reasoned response to my argument. That is intellectually stimulating and alone has the hope of leading the lost to Christ. Yes, I am proselytizing. I warned all:

NKJ  1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 12:34:26 AM
Won't anyone address my argument?

I would, but I'm intimidated by your brilliance.

I apologize.

Perhaps this then:

I've heard folks get irrational when you attack their idols, they respond to reasoned argument with reviling etc.

Is that true?

I don't know. You tell us.  Proverbs 12:15.

Jeremiah 7:24.  False dogma are also idols.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Thankful on August 03, 2010, 12:36:51 AM
Why do I feel like I'm watching The Princess Bride?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 12:40:36 AM
I see your rantings, but I don't see any of the exegesis of our Father among the Saints, St. John of Damascus.  Maybe you should first read what you deny, so you don't look ridiculous.

Not I who appears ridiculous.

Trust me, I've been called worse and it brings me joy:

 22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake.
 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 NKJ)

Won't anyone address my argument?
St. John already has.  You invoked his name to smear him.  Numbers 12:8

Here.  I practically have to put the nipple in your mouth:
Three treatises on the divine images By John (of Damascus, Saint.), Andrew Louth
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_U1mtafEPMC&pg=PA90&dq=John+of+Damascus+on+the+divine+images+4:15&hl=en&ei=65hXTM3QBIyJnQfpnM3YCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thanks anyway...

I didn't post for links.

So you posted without knowing what you are talking about.

You brought up St. John.  You haven't addressed him.  If you wanted us to address your novel interpretations, you should have made a thread on that.

Quote
I want reasoned response to my argument. That is intellectually stimulating and alone has the hope of leading the lost to Christ. Yes, I am proselytizing. I warned all:

NKJ  1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. (1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

II Peter 3:15 Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 12:42:34 AM
Won't anyone address my argument?

I would, but I'm intimidated by your brilliance.

I apologize.

Perhaps this then:

I've heard folks get irrational when you attack their idols, they respond to reasoned argument with reviling etc.

Is that true?

I don't know. You tell us.  Proverbs 12:15.

Jeremiah 7:24.  False dogma are also idols.

15 The ways of fools are right in their own eyes; but a wise man hearkens to counsels. (Pro 12:15 LXE)

24 But they hearkened not to me, and their ear gave no heed, but they walked in the imaginations of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward; (Jer 7:24 LXE)

All the more reason to address my argument rationally, appealing to Scripture for insight, lest we not give the LORD our ear.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2010, 12:43:06 AM
I apologize.

Perhaps this then:

I've heard folks get irrational when you attack their idols, they respond to reasoned argument with reviling etc.

Is that true?

No, Alfred. Most of us try to be dispassionate and objective, using verifiable Orthodox tradition (scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the liturgical deposit of the Church, the resolutions of the Ecumenical Councils), as well as history.

There is nothing new under the sun. Iconoclasm is as old as Christianity itself, and keeps reinventing itself in the form of Calvinist prohibitions of images,  the Jehovah's Witnesses insistence that Christ was executed on a vertical pole, not on a cross, etc etc - yet iconography survives and thrives to this day.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 12:47:21 AM
I apologize.

Perhaps this then:

I've heard folks get irrational when you attack their idols, they respond to reasoned argument with reviling etc.

Is that true?

No, Alfred. Most of us try to be dispassionate and objective, using verifiable Orthodox tradition (scripture, the writings of the Fathers, the liturgical deposit of the Church, the resolutions of the Ecumenical Councils), as well as history.

There is nothing new under the sun. Iconoclasm is as old as Christianity itself, and keeps reinventing itself in the form of Calvinist prohibitions of images,  the Jehovah's Witnesses insistence that Christ was executed on a vertical pole, not on a cross, etc etc - yet iconography survives and thrives to this day.

I did not see reasoned argument in that quote...only a claim.

I would truly enjoy a dispassionate objective, and verifiable Orthodox response, citing the scripture we both love dear, how you suppose it contradicts my argument.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2010, 01:07:21 AM
I did not see reasoned argument in that quote...only a claim.

I would truly enjoy a dispassionate objective, and verifiable Orthodox response, citing the scripture we both love dear, how you suppose it contradicts my argument.

You are the one who has raised the "idolatry" allegation against the Orthodox, by invoking St John of Damascus. If you wish to have a truly objective discussion on this matter, then take the time to read and absorb what St John has written in the defense of icons, as linked to by ialmisry. Here's another link, to an HTML of the same document:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html#PART%20I

If and when you have read St John's work, then we might be able to have a proper discussion on the matter.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 03, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible. God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton


Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God; 2)The Word became male human flesh.

Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude and making Him like His creation. It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.

Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.

Contrary to John D's citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):

Abraham planted a grove

Gen 21:33 "Then Abraham planted a field at the Well of Oath, and there he called on the name of the Lord."-Orthodox Study Bible

33. Abraham planted a grove—Hebrew, “of tamarisks,” in which sacrificial worship was offered, as in a roofless temple.
[1]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Ge 21:33). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Jacob set up a pillar

Gen 18:16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "The Lord is in this place, and I did not know it."
Gen 18:17 So he was afraid and said "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."
Gen 18:18 Now Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone he put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it.-Orthodox Study Bible

This veneration was not acceptable to God as He later forbade both in Deuteronomy 16:21f

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.



"Eh, the Bible says a lot of things"- Chief Wiggum from a "Treehouse of Horror" episode, in response to 'Judge not lest ye be judged', right before the attempted execution of a witch.

Seriously, the Bible says a lot of things.  Some of these things are contradictory (this does not mean that the Bible contradicts itself, paradox is an ancient tradition found in Eastern wisdom).  If you look into past threads on icons you will see this question brought up (comes up about once every few months in the Convert Issues forum) in a more respectful manner.  

We can cite many examples from the Old Testament of Jews venerating not only the Ark of the Covenant but the Temple, the Temple Mount, and even the city of Jerusalem itself.

As regards your passages from Deuteronomy, we must look at these in the greater context of the religious environment the Hebrew settlers were moving into.  Trees and groves by this time had become associated not just with a reverent attitude of worship but particular gods and goddesses of fertility.  A perfectly innocent practice of reverence in the time of Abraham had become something with a completely different meaning in the time of Moses and Joshua.  As for pillars... Well, I guess David and Solomon really messed up when they built the Temple, but then how else could they hold the roof up?  Again, it wasn't the practice of setting up any old pillar that the Hebrew were commanded against, but a specific type of pillar (much different from Jacob's pillow cum "pillar") which represented the phallic boast of Canaanite gods.

Now, to the actual task at hand- the Deuteronomy 4:15 passage.  I will bold the gaping hole in your logic.   "And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton"

By the way, the OSB, which you apparently own since you quoted it for your later texts renders this into a more modern grammatical structure as this: "So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16 Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image; the likeness of male or female"  It seems that you merely selected a translation that would appear to back your argument up

See, it was because God did not show Himself on Horeb that the Israelites were forbidden to make any figure.  The Israelites were not yet ready for the Incarnation, but they had symbols aplenty to prepare themselves for that event (the Passover being most obvious).  Once God took on the form of man such a prohibition was no longer applicable.  God had become man, a recordable and identifiable Jewish male, whose words could be written down and whose figure could be drawn and painted.

But, hey, as long as we're on the subject of idolatry, how about those abhorrent poles that got Solomon into so much trouble?  There's no way those could become acceptable, right?  It's not like God would ever get elevated on a pole, albeit with some sort of bar across the upper portion, not for any reason whatsoever....
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Thankful on August 03, 2010, 01:28:09 AM
See, it was because God did not show Himself on Horeb that the Israelites were forbidden to make any figure.  The Israelites were not yet ready for the Incarnation, but they had symbols aplenty to prepare themselves for that event (the Passover being most obvious).  Once God took on the form of man such a prohibition was no longer applicable.  God had become man, a recordable and identifiable Jewish male, whose words could be written down and whose figure could be drawn and painted.

Thank you for this. As a new convert, this is the clearest, most detailed explanation I have seen and I appreciated reading it. I'd understood the part about the incarnation and the ability to have icons because of that, but I hadn't seen this explanation based on the passage in Deuteronomy.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 01:32:16 AM
Now, to the actual task at hand- the Deuteronomy 4:15 passage.  I will bold the gaping hole in your logic.   "And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton"

By the way, the OSB, which you apparently own since you quoted it for your later texts renders this into a more modern grammatical structure as this: "So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16 Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image; the likeness of male or female"  It seems that you merely selected a translation that would appear to back your argument up

No, I want it clear the Septuagint forbids every kind of (EIKWN)

And you evaded my points:

1)John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible as God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton


2)Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.

There are more, but lets start with these, shall we?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2010, 01:39:30 AM
Now, to the actual task at hand- the Deuteronomy 4:15 passage.  I will bold the gaping hole in your logic.   "And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton"

By the way, the OSB, which you apparently own since you quoted it for your later texts renders this into a more modern grammatical structure as this: "So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16 Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image; the likeness of male or female"  It seems that you merely selected a translation that would appear to back your argument up

No, I want it clear the Septuagint forbids every kind of (EIKWN)

And you evaded my points:

1)John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible as God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton


2)Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.

There are more, but lets start with these, shall we?


It is patently obvious that you have not read St John of Damascus' treatise. Please read it first. It's not exactly honest to condemn someone's writings without having read and absorbed it first. Quoting and condemning one snippet of it is not objective discourse.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 03, 2010, 01:47:53 AM
Taking your points backwards then:

1) God rendered His own Transcendent infinitude into finity.  "Who being in the form of God and counting it not theft to be equal to God, emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as man" (Phil 2:6,7)  He bridged the separation from His creation.  To quote one of your supposed favorites, St Athanasius: "God became man so that man could become god."

2)  Both natures are indeed united, which is why

3) St John of Damascus can declare that Deut 4:15 no longer applies.  We can make pictures of God because God made Himself man.  (The Septuagint also forbids pork, shellfish, suffering a witch to live, and many other things we overlook because God became man)

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 03, 2010, 01:48:48 AM
I see your rantings, but I don't see any of the exegesis of our Father among the Saints, St. John of Damascus.  Maybe you should first read what you deny, so you don't look ridiculous.

Not I who appears ridiculous.

Trust me, I've been called worse and it brings me joy:

 22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake.
 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven, For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 NKJ)

Won't anyone address my argument?


What Argument?







ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 01:54:31 AM
Since the OP doesn't want to address St. John (as his title suggests), but just malign him, I've started a thread where we can discuss the teaching of Pearsonism on icons, which the OP seems to want to bait and switch here.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459415/topicseen.html#msg459415
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Robert W on August 03, 2010, 04:24:00 AM
3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.
(emphasis mine)
One of the reasons people respond to you by ridicule Alfred, is that this whole way of thinking is so foreign to Orthodox people. We believe that God indeed became man in every way you and me are men. We believe that God took on the form of the CREATED man. I don't know how to explain this fantastic mystery other than repeating it again and again. God became HUMAN and took on the form of CREATED FLESH!

It is incomprehensible to us that we are allowed to paint pictures of trees, animals, our relatives and anything we see, except Christ. Why were people even allowed to see Christ if they were forbidden to paint pictures of what they had seen?

As others have said Alfred, you are free to express your opinions here. Just don't expect too much "debate" or "dialogue" when your arguments are incomprehensible to us.  :D

EDIT: Also, attacking the saints of the Church does not further your case either. ;)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: visitor on August 03, 2010, 05:24:06 AM
Won't anyone address my argument?

I would, but I'm intimidated by your brilliance.

I apologize.

Perhaps this then:

I've heard folks get irrational when you attack their idols, they respond to reasoned argument with reviling etc.

Is that true?

Hi.

Watch this: Angelos. What is that? It's a word represented in letters--it's literally an image of the word. It is not an image of the thing, but it is an image of the abstraction that is a word. Words themselves are representations even when spoken.

Is Angelos transcendental? Yes it is. Therefore the printed word Angelos is itself an image of something which exists in heaven.

The Bible itself is representation, and is composed of representations. We study it as an icon---an icon full of icons. We venerate the Bible.


Some people, however, have turned the Bible itself into an idol. Biblioatry I call it. Essentially, they use the Bible as a ouija board to extract answers that they themselves supply before they even open the book. St. John Chrysostom once said that anything at all can be justified by Scripture, and it has been proven by history to have been a correct hypothesis (mostly by the insanely conflict- and economics- crazy Protestant current of history...).

So what proof is this you offer? At best, your proof is a reinvention of the wheel! It is a proof that representations can lead us toward God.

But the Bible is not the Word of God. Christ is the Word of God. The big news here, really, is that you are the idolater and should repent.

But returning to the reinvention of the wheel... Do you not think it possible that these same arguments that you purvey in your shamelessly misnamed post were offered by better men than thou, and defeated by better men than thou at Ecumenical Council?

So anyway. We hope you enjoyed your visit to the bridge, and that you will remember for years to come your big opportunity at the helm. You're now an official Special Reserve Junior Captain! Here's your official Special Reserve Junior Captian button.  :police: ...There you go...

Bye now.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2010, 05:34:13 AM
Allow me to take a different approach:

Alfred, what would be your reaction to someone spitting, or stomping on, or burning a Bible?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: visitor on August 03, 2010, 05:38:07 AM
Allow me to take a different approach:

Alfred, what would be your reaction to someone spitting, or stamping, or burning a Bible?

Heavy.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 06:02:44 AM
FormerReformer link

Taking your points backwards then:

3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.

1) God rendered His own Transcendent infinitude into finity.  "Who being in the form of God and counting it not theft to be equal to God, emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as man" (Phil 2:6,7)  He bridged the separation from His creation.  To quote one of your supposed favorites, St Athanasius: "God became man so that man could become god."


Incorrect for it is written:

NKJ  John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (Joh 1:18 NKJ)

As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:

NKJ  John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (Joh 3:13 NKJ)


###


2)Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son

2)  Both natures are indeed united, which is why


Incorrect, as icons cannot image Divine Nature they tear the human nature of the Son from His divine Nature = Nesotrian error.


Moreover, icons manage the impossible by also inspiring Monophysite error among the illiterate. What else can they conclude when the two natures of Christ are in the One Icon, a monophysite confusion of natures.



##

1)John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible as God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton[/i]

3) St John of Damascus can declare that Deut 4:15 no longer applies.  We can make pictures of God because God made Himself man.  (The Septuagint also forbids pork, shellfish, suffering a witch to live, and many other things we overlook because God became man)


Incorrect:

If John of Damascus is right then then Is 40:25 no longer applies and God is unholy:

25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. (Isa 40:25 KJV)

Inasmuch as the divine holiness is the separateness of the Divine Being from all finiteness of the creature, it includes the impossibility of forming an image of the Divine Being. For the connection of the two ideas compare the passage Isa. 40:25.- Oehler, G. F., & Day, G. E. (2009). Theology of the Old Testament. (111). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


If John of Damascus is right Christ's flesh is His similitude then Jesus is not God for it is written:

NKJ  John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (Joh 1:18 NKJ)


If John of Damascus is correct Jesus incarnate body is the similitude of God  then the Word never became human flesh and His dwelling among us was in appearance only (Deu 4:15f).

But that is impossible as it is written:

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Joh 1:14 NKJ)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: LBK on August 03, 2010, 06:47:04 AM
Alfred, it is increasingly obvious that you have not read St John of Damascus' essay in full. One you have done this, and only once you've done this, will most, if not all, of us, listen to what you have to say.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: recent convert on August 03, 2010, 06:57:08 AM
I don't understand much of what is being said here but I do realize that when seeing the Icon of the Christ child with the Theotokos & reading how the wise men worshipped the Lord in Matthew 2:11 and then seeing the holy icon of Christ the pantocrator on the dome & reading Colossians 1:15-16 how am I worshipping idols? If I could not read but upon hearing the scriptures & seeing a holy illustration, what "idols" are being worshipped? If I know the cloud of heavenly witness of the saints (in Hebrews) & see a holy illustration how are idols being worshipped? They are not, this is worship of God in His holy house.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Robert W on August 03, 2010, 07:20:55 AM
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 03, 2010, 08:41:44 AM
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.

The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.









ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 03, 2010, 08:48:08 AM
See, it was because God did not show Himself on Horeb that the Israelites were forbidden to make any figure.  The Israelites were not yet ready for the Incarnation, but they had symbols aplenty to prepare themselves for that event (the Passover being most obvious).  Once God took on the form of man such a prohibition was no longer applicable.  God had become man, a recordable and identifiable Jewish male, whose words could be written down and whose figure could be drawn and painted.

Thank you for this. As a new convert, this is the clearest, most detailed explanation I have seen and I appreciated reading it. I'd understood the part about the incarnation and the ability to have icons because of that, but I hadn't seen this explanation based on the passage in Deuteronomy.


I agree! Good job Mike!









ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 03, 2010, 09:39:54 AM
NKJ  John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (Joh 1:18 NKJ)

You forgot the second half of that verse.
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

And also John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

2Cor 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: theistgal on August 03, 2010, 10:01:08 AM
Alfred, does the Bible you use have any pictures in it?

If not, do you think it is OK for Bibles to use pictures?

Is it OK for a child in Sunday school to draw a picture of Jesus and hang it up in her room to look at?

Just curious - are you opposed to all religious artwork, always and everywhere?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Schultz on August 03, 2010, 10:05:11 AM
Why do I feel like I'm watching The Princess Bride?

Inconceivable!
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: visitor on August 03, 2010, 10:15:54 AM
FormerReformer link




###


2)Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son

2)  Both natures are indeed united, which is why


Incorrect, as icons cannot image Divine Nature they tear the human nature of the Son from His divine Nature = Nesotrian error.


Moreover, icons manage the impossible by also inspiring Monophysite error among the illiterate. What else can they conclude when the two natures of Christ are in the One Icon, a monophysite confusion of natures.






Our Special Reserve Junior Captain! Where's your button? ...Oh well, nevermind. Here's another one.  :police: ...There you go. How come you haven't been answering any of the stronger critiques and questions put to you? ...There, there now. Of course your in charge! You don't have to answer people if you don't want to.

It's pretty clear that you are wholly and entirely unfamiliar with the Iconoclast controversy, or you would know how this dialogue resolves itself.

And I am pretty sure that you don't understand the Monophysite heresy either (I'm sticking up for my "non-Chalcedonians" here--stay of my back please, boys). Monophysitism, as it was called, was "softened" into Monotheletism... which thesis also cannot be pictured in an icon, true enough. Did you know that we even had Monothelete emperors! And we had Iconoclast emperors too! The latter had a propensity for replacing holy icons with.... are you ready for this? .....portraits of themselves! Weird huh. Oops... you dropped your little pin with your picture on it...  :police: There you go. It's all about you.

Pay attention in school and pray, then maybe you can talk sensibly about this someday instead of--if I may borrow a rather unfortunate metaphor from Greek philosophy--reasoning about colors as one who's been purblind from birth.


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 10:17:51 AM
3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.
(emphasis mine)
One of the reasons people respond to you by ridicule Alfred, is that this whole way of thinking is so foreign to Orthodox people. We believe that God indeed became man in every way you and me are men. We believe that God took on the form of the CREATED man. I don't know how to explain this fantastic mystery other than repeating it again and again. God became HUMAN and took on the form of CREATED FLESH!

It is incomprehensible to us that we are allowed to paint pictures of trees, animals, our relatives and anything we see, except Christ. Why were people even allowed to see Christ if they were forbidden to paint pictures of what they had seen?

As others have said Alfred, you are free to express your opinions here. Just don't expect too much "debate" or "dialogue" when your arguments are incomprehensible to us.  :D

EDIT: Also, attacking the saints of the Church does not further your case either. ;)
Yes, St. John desposes of Perssonism's Nestroian arguments quite decisively, something AP would know if he read the words of our father among the saints.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 03, 2010, 10:50:14 AM
Quote
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible.

Why did you ignore Isa in regards to what he said about Saint John of Damascus?


 
Quote
God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

God also expressly ruled out any kind of image of things in the air/outerspace/3rd heaven, on the ground/Earth, and in the water too! So why are you being inconsistent?

Exodus 20: 4-5
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

The reality/facts on the ground for early Christianity is one of:


Likeness of things in the air:
(The Dove, the Eagle, Peacocks, Pelicans, The Phoenix.....etc)
Early Christian funerary art from the Roman catacombs depicting the Chi-Roh symbol Christ figure and dove 3rd-5th century CE
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/3711200710_d1798876cc.jpg)

3rd century
(http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/Doves1.jpg)

(http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/Two_Doves_Vase_Palm_Branches_Fresco_sm.jpg)



Likeness of things on the Earth/ground:
(The Lamb, people, trees, palm branches, Pomegranate, the Cross....etc)

(http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/PC-Mouses.jpg)

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/6/22/1277228289050/icon-of-the-Apostle-John--006.jpg)

(http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/images/orantes_catacombs.jpg)

(http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/images/orante_priscilla.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Baptism_-_Marcellinus_and_Peter.jpg/220px-Baptism_-_Marcellinus_and_Peter.jpg)

(http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Orpheus-CHRISTIAN_CONNECTION/Orpheus-Christian_connection-ART_files/image001.jpg)

(http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Orpheus-CHRISTIAN_CONNECTION/Orpheus-Christian_connection-ART_files/image032.jpg)

(http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Orpheus-CHRISTIAN_CONNECTION/Orpheus-Christian_connection-ART_files/image061.jpg)



Likeness of things in the water: (fish, anchor.......etc)

(http://www.livinghopechurch.com/files/cache/2008/11/02/400x400/24666_n.jpg)

(http://www.livinghopechurch.com/files/cache/2008/11/02/400x400/24662_n.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WCOK_fnfycE/R9X9LKi-9gI/AAAAAAAAAvw/OUhDUbj_12I/s320/2-fish-anchor.jpg)


The ancient Christians obviously saw things differently.

Also, if God can allow not only the images He specifically commanded:
Ex 25:17-22
"Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites."

Ex 28:31-35
""Make the robe of the ephod entirely of blue cloth, with an opening for the head in its center. There shall be a woven edge like a collar around this opening, so that it will not tear. Make pomegranates of blue, purple and scarlet yarn around the hem of the robe, with gold bells between them. The gold bells and the pomegranates are to alternate around the hem of the robe. Aaron must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the LORD and when he comes out, so that he will not die."

Ex 26:1-6
"Make the tabernacle with ten curtains of finely twisted linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim worked into them by a skilled craftsman. 2 All the curtains are to be the same size—twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide. 3 Join five of the curtains together, and do the same with the other five. 4 Make loops of blue material along the edge of the end curtain in one set, and do the same with the end curtain in the other set. 5 Make fifty loops on one curtain and fifty loops on the end curtain of the other set, with the loops opposite each other. 6 Then make fifty gold clasps and use them to fasten the curtains together so that the tabernacle is a unit."


But also the ones in which he didn't command....like:

1st Kings chapter 6:19-37
He prepared the inner sanctuary within the temple to set the ark of the covenant of the LORD there. The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty wide and twenty high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold, and he also overlaid the altar of cedar.  Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold, and he extended gold chains across the front of the inner sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold. So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary.

 In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits—ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. The height of each cherub was ten cubits. He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. He overlaid the cherubim with gold.

 On the walls all around the temple, in both the inner and outer rooms, he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. He also covered the floors of both the inner and outer rooms of the temple with gold.

 For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood with five-sided jambs. And on the two olive wood doors he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid the cherubim and palm trees with beaten gold. In the same way he made four-sided jambs of olive wood for the entrance to the main hall. He also made two pine doors, each having two leaves that turned in sockets. He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings.


 And he built the inner courtyard of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams.

 The foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it."


And Chapter 7:
"The Temple's Furnishings
  King Solomon sent to Tyre and brought Huram, whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father was a man of Tyre and a craftsman in bronze. Huram was highly skilled and experienced in all kinds of bronze work. He came to King Solomon and did all the work assigned to him.
 He cast two bronze pillars, each eighteen cubits high and twelve cubits around, by line. He also made two capitals of cast bronze to set on the tops of the pillars; each capital was five cubits high. A network of interwoven chains festooned the capitals on top of the pillars, seven for each capital. He made pomegranates in two rows encircling each network to decorate the capitals on top of the pillars. He did the same for each capital. The capitals on top of the pillars in the portico were in the shape of lilies, four cubits high.  On the capitals of both pillars, above the bowl-shaped part next to the network, were the two hundred pomegranates in rows all around. He erected the pillars at the portico of the temple. The pillar to the south he named Jakin and the one to the north Boaz.  The capitals on top were in the shape of lilies. And so the work on the pillars was completed.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.

He also made ten movable stands of bronze; each was four cubits long, four wide and three high. This is how the stands were made: They had side panels attached to uprights. On the panels between the uprights were lions, bulls and cherubim—and on the uprights as well. Above and below the lions and bulls were wreaths of hammered work. Each stand had four bronze wheels with bronze axles, and each had a basin resting on four supports, cast with wreaths on each side. On the inside of the stand there was an opening that had a circular frame one cubit deep. This opening was round, and with its basework it measured a cubit and a half. Around its opening there was engraving. The panels of the stands were square, not round. The four wheels were under the panels, and the axles of the wheels were attached to the stand. The diameter of each wheel was a cubit and a half. The wheels were made like chariot wheels; the axles, rims, spokes and hubs were all of cast metal.
Each stand had four handles, one on each corner, projecting from the stand. At the top of the stand there was a circular band half a cubit deep. The supports and panels were attached to the top of the stand. He engraved cherubim, lions and palm trees on the surfaces of the supports and on the panels, in every available space, with wreaths all around. This is the way he made the ten stands. They were all cast in the same molds and were identical in size and shape.
 He then made ten bronze basins, each holding forty baths and measuring four cubits across, one basin to go on each of the ten stands. He placed five of the stands on the south side of the temple and five on the north. He placed the Sea on the south side, at the southeast corner of the temple. 40 He also made the basins and shovels and sprinkling bowls.
      So Huram finished all the work he had undertaken for King Solomon in the temple of the LORD :

 the two pillars;
       the two bowl-shaped capitals on top of the pillars;
       the two sets of network decorating the two bowl-shaped capitals on top of the pillars;

 the four hundred pomegranates for the two sets of network (two rows of pomegranates for each network, decorating the bowl-shaped capitals on top of the pillars

 the ten stands with their ten basins;

the Sea and the twelve bulls under it;

 the pots, shovels and sprinkling bowls.
      All these objects that Huram made for King Solomon for the temple of the LORD were of burnished bronze. The king had them cast in clay molds in the plain of the Jordan between Succoth and Zarethan. Solomon left all these things unweighed, because there were so many; the weight of the bronze was not determined.

 Solomon also made all the furnishings that were in the LORD's temple:
       the golden altar;
       the golden table on which was the bread of the Presence;

 the lampstands of pure gold (five on the right and five on the left, in front of the inner sanctuary
       the gold floral work and lamps and tongs;

 the pure gold basins, wick trimmers, sprinkling bowls, dishes and censers;
       and the gold sockets for the doors of the innermost room, the Most Holy Place, and also for the doors of the main hall of the temple.

 When all the work King Solomon had done for the temple of the LORD was finished, he brought in the things his father David had dedicated—the silver and gold and the furnishings—and he placed them in the treasuries of the LORD's temple."


As you can see, King Solomon added images to the Temple of Jerusalem that God didn't command in Exodus and Deuteronomy. And this was something 2nd Temple Judaism preserved for we have a decorated Temple artifact to prove it:

(http://hiram7.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/budnikant-24.jpg?w=439&h=361)

(http://hiram7.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/budnikant-28.jpg?w=439&h=334)

The Temple and things used in it were decorated with images. And so if the early Christians can make images of things in the air/Heavens, Earth/ground, and water.....eventhough the passage in Exodus says we can't, and if God allowed the ancient Jews to do the same in regards to images / decorations that He not only specifically commanded, but also the ones in which He didn't......as seen in 1st Kings! Then why can't the same be done in regards to the passage in Deuteronomy after the Incarnation? It's consistent and it makes perfect reasonable sense!



Quote
Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God; 2)The Word became male human flesh.

I already explained why such a thing is not the case.



Quote
Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

How in the world can you call us Nestorian? Don't you know that the nonchalcedonian OO's also embrace Icons?

Also, this is what we mean when we talk about such things:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php) (Orthodox Unity document)

Quote:
"When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only."


 


Quote
One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude and making Him like His creation. It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.

No one has seen God back then...at least not face to face..... that was the reason. He was truly seen later in time when He was Incarnate!

Quote
Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.

No it's not! The Old Testament also said that no one has seen God's face and still lived. People saw His face when He was Incarnate, and yes they still lived!




Quote
Contrary to John D's citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs,

Exodus says don't make images, but it also allowed it, and God allowed King Solomon to make more images that He never commanded.
Just face it! God allowed the Patriarchs to do it in the same manor as He allowed images to be made....both with as well as without His specific commands.

Also you forgot that the ancient Jews venerated the footstool:
The Jews bowed down in front of the footstool in the Temple(Psalm 99:1-5)
Psalm99:1-5
"The LORD reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved! The LORD is great in Zion, And He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Your great and awesome name— He is holy. The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. Exalt the LORD our God, And worship at His footstool— He is holy."

They also bowed before the Kings of Israel:
1st Chronicles 29:20
Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king.

Also, in modern times, Jews still venerate the Torah Scroll, they even venerate the Bible, and the Western Wall while praying and reading Scripture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2ReQgj_zg&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2ReQgj_zg&feature=player_embedded) (Jewish Prayer at the Western Wall, Old City of Jerusalem)  



Quote
and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):

God approved of it. Just like He did with the bowing down before the Kings of Israel and the footstool in the Temple. There are certain degrees/levels of respect/veneration.

The difference is the intent. What are the intentions.

Ok, I'm getting a little tired now. I may or may not deal with the rest at a later time.










ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 01:24:19 PM
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.

The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA

Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: visitor on August 03, 2010, 01:37:05 PM
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.

The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA

Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.





Our Special Reserve Junior Captain hasn't hit the books like he was told. Correcting his teachers indeed! Learn the word prosopon and then get back to us, Mr. Alban.



Aside: Good grief.


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 03, 2010, 02:07:47 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Nigula Qian Zishi on August 03, 2010, 02:18:59 PM
Detailed instructions are given by God for the plan of the Ark: it is to be 2½ cubits in length, 1½ in breadth, and 1½ in height (as 21⁄2×11⁄2×11⁄2 royal cubits or 1.31×0.79×0.79 m). Then it is to be plated entirely with gold, and a crown or molding of gold is to be put around it. Four rings of gold are to be put into its four feet—two on each side—and through these rings staves of shittim-wood overlaid with gold for carrying the Ark are to be inserted; and these are not to be removed. A golden cover, adorned with golden cherubim, is to be placed above the Ark. The Ark is finally to be placed behind a veil (Parochet), a full description of which is also given. (http://ecumenicalbuddhism.blogspot.com/2010/08/tabernacles-and-arks-of-old-covenant.html)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 03:15:19 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

All, Father? I've yet to seen proof that he has read any of St. John.

I've opened a thread addressing the teachings of Perssonism (misspellt: I apologize. Can a mod fix that in the title?) on icons. Our heresiarch has yet to respond to his "arguments" there.  I'll address his rantings against St. John when we see some proof that he has actually read something of what he is criticizing.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: samkim on August 03, 2010, 03:22:12 PM
Why do you accept the canon of the Old Testament that you use to attack us?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 03, 2010, 03:31:51 PM
All, Father? I've yet to seen proof that he has read any of St. John.

Color me the eternal optimist.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 03:53:19 PM
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.

The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA

Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.



http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.new.html#new
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 03:59:34 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: chrevbel on August 03, 2010, 04:05:39 PM
Good grief.
Agreed.  100%.

Folks, of what use is continuing this thread?  His clearly stated intention is to engage in a win-lose game of some sort.  Any playing at all is a loss, IMO.  Silence is the only appropriate response.  But now I violate my own counsel.  Bye-bye.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: visitor on August 03, 2010, 04:09:02 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal, someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

Prosopon! Look it up! Why are you wasting our time like this? Where is your shame? What you are doing here is wrong. Clearly, you want some kind Judaistical "proof"; it's been given. You wanted proof about St. Damascene's position; you got it. You wanted the theological support of icons; you got it. Your response: simple obstinancy. You don't even respond to your own critics.

But what I really can't figure out is why you are here hurling the anathemas of Councils at us when it's pretty clear that you don't even believe in Councils!

You are misguided and playing games, and I for one would not object if you were banned.



That's it for me. I'm finished with this clown.


(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) Even though Alfred Persson has made his trolling behavior rather obvious, this post wherein you abuse Mr. Perssons and call him a clown is well beyond inappropriate.  We do not tolerate such personal attacks on this forum.  Since you've already been warned about this and have shown no real attempt to mellow your bellicose posting style, your warning will last for 40 days to give you some time to think about how you relate to people on this forum in general.  Be aware also that continued attacks on other posters will result in stiffer penalties, to include post moderation, muting, or banning.  If you think this unfair, please feel free to appeal my decision via private message to Veniamin (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=996) or to Fr. Chris (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=60).

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Robert W on August 03, 2010, 04:27:30 PM
proof.

Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?
Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors.  Yes/no?
Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?
Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?
The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 03, 2010, 04:56:20 PM
proof.

Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?
Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors.  Yes/no?
Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?
Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?
The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.

Heavy stuff!

Alfred, an idol, whether it be a statue, a painting, a celebrity, or a tree said to have spiritual powers, does not exist in and of itself as an idol. It is made into an idol by those who idolize it. An icon can be made into an idol, but you will have to prove that we confuse an image of Christ with His  Person. This you are incapable of doing, since in St. John of Damascus at least, you will find no evidence for this.

Your arguments and your method of argument betrays you as someone who believes he personally has all the answers. We, however, are not our own instructors, but have the  Holy Fathers for our teachers and the Church for our mother. If you decide you are tired of being alone with your own counsel, you are welcome to join us, but first you will have to humble yourself.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 05:14:36 PM
Now, to the actual task at hand- the Deuteronomy 4:15 passage.  I will bold the gaping hole in your logic.   "And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton"

By the way, the OSB, which you apparently own since you quoted it for your later texts renders this into a more modern grammatical structure as this: "So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16 Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image; the likeness of male or female"  It seems that you merely selected a translation that would appear to back your argument up

No, I want it clear the Septuagint forbids every kind of (EIKWN)

And you evaded my points:

1)John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible as God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton


2)Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.

There are more, but lets start with these, shall we?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644

Btw, thank you to whoever fixed the spelling on that thread's title.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 05:20:17 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Back up your claims, with proof.

Physician, heal thyself.

Quote
Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.
Since Father didn't, are you confessing?

Quote
In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

Yes, it is the opposite of its title. On Perssonism:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644

Quote
But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.
St. John treated, and refuted, your argument a millenium before you repeated someone else's mistakes, and then some.

On Perssonism:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644

Quote
I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

No, we weren't. But I (and others) are wondering (and have posted so already) why you claim to refute St. John, when you haven't read him, and don't respond to the refutation of Perssonism.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 03, 2010, 05:26:02 PM
Back up your claims, with proof.

I haven't made a claim - you have, and have done so on a bed of quicksand rather than rock.  Your argument is akin to walking into a Physics symposium and claiming that gravity doesn't exist because Newton didn't own a properly calibrated scale.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

I have no intention of calling you, or thinking of you as, an idiot.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

I will echo the sentiments of another: quit the martyr complex, will ya?

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

As far as I can tell, no one has insulted you - just pointed out that your argument begins from a flawed starting position, which thus renders it indefensible (making any debate on it unnecessary).  You insist that we engage in a dialogue on your points - but if your points have no direction or sharpness, then they're dull edges instead, and we have no point to engage.  Give us a sharpened point, that we may engage it.

- Oh, and you have yet to respond to the points of discussion directed to your assertions in the following thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 05:27:46 PM
proof.

Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?
Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors.  Yes/no?
Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?
Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?
The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.new.html#new
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: samkim on August 03, 2010, 05:27:51 PM
Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.
I have no intention of calling you, or thinking of you as, an idiot.

Speak for yourself, Father.  :angel:

We don't accept such language here - mike
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Andrew21091 on August 03, 2010, 06:25:04 PM
Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

I don't know how icons are Nestorian since they do not use them. The Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian) does not use icons and from what I've heard, even frowns upon them for the most part.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 07:24:57 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.

Everyone changes the subject to me.

John of Damascus didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.

Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.

I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: zoarthegleaner on August 03, 2010, 07:28:00 PM
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible. God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton





Alfred:  

You want a reasoned argument: then tell us when were you at Mt. Choreb?  
And when did you hear the Lord speak out of that Mountain?  
And when did you see the Holy Fire?


John
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: samkim on August 03, 2010, 07:49:08 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.

Everyone changes the subject to me.

John D didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.

Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.

I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.



Any time you open a Bible, you are opening a collection of Orthodox Catholic books. The Orthodox Catholic Church collected, edited, and canonized the books of the Bible. It is this Church, which published the Bible, which has the authority to interpret the Bible.

You do not belong to this Church. You are bringing ideas foreign to the Church of God. You might as well be a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness. In that you all reject the Orthodox Catholic Church, there is no difference between you.

Since you reject the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Church, it makes no sense for you to read the Bible or consider it authoritative. It is completely absurd to say, "Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and relics and all the rest of it are bosh, but your book is holy!"

In the words of Chesterton, "To say to the priests, 'Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,' is sensible. To say, 'Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street."
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 08:17:49 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.
(http://adnauseous.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/monkey-covering-eyes.jpg)
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700

Quote
Everyone changes the subject to me.
No, you, only giving your opinion, did that.

Quote
John D didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.

Since you haven't read him (to judge by your posts), how would you know. Good guess on St. John's demenor, though. Btw, he succeeded.

Quote
Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700


Quote
I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700
I'm waiting.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 03, 2010, 08:19:57 PM
Alfred Persson,

You have yet to respond to the points of discussion directed to your assertions in the following thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: theistgal on August 03, 2010, 10:39:05 PM
This may be a silly question, but here goes:  if no one responds to the OP's satisfaction, what's the worst that could happen?

In other words, why bother with this at all?  He doesn't really seem interested in a serious discussion.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 03, 2010, 11:14:16 PM
This may be a silly question, but here goes:  if no one responds to the OP's satisfaction, what's the worst that could happen?

In other words, why bother with this at all?  He doesn't really seem interested in a serious discussion.

If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet.  But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate.  He seems to have run out of his repetoire.

Speaking of icons, I've posted a picture that sums up the purpose of Mr. Persson's posts:
http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/mis.jpg
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 03, 2010, 11:16:58 PM
Alfred Persson,

You have yet to respond to the points of discussion directed to your assertions in the following thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

Have a nice day.

You want I step into a "gauntlet". Kindly tell them all "Keep holding  your breath, he will be here any minute!"

ha ha!

God says "they saw no similitude" , they cannot make an ICON in the likeness of a human male etc. Therefore human flesh is not God's similitude, they have seen that.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton


John of Damascus says Jesus incarnate body is the similitude of God, we can make an icon of Him, this therefore does not violate Deu 4:15f.

As Deu does not allow icons of God in human flesh, the only way an icon of Jesus body does not violate Deut 4:15 is if:

1)The icon's prototype is not God.
2)The icon is not imaging human flesh.


That is my First argument.

Here is the Second:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.


Now  you can decry my pedigree, education, religion, ect, but until you actually treat my argument, nothing you gents say is relevant.

If any reading this suddenly realize how foolish icons are and are wondering what to do next...

Repent of idolatry and any mysticism with it and cry out to the LORD Jesus Christ, "save me a sinner, I beg you", publicly confess you believe He is LORD risen from the dead," for it is  written:

 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 (Rom 10:9-10 NKJ)

God does not lie, do that, and you are saved. He will guide you what to do next.

I recall obeying that myself, and haven't looked back at my former life wanting anything, these 30+ years Jesus has always been with me, never forsaking me. And He will do the same for you, but you must repent, and confess He is LORD in public, before the eyes of angels and men.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 03, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.

The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA

Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.

What was the position of the Iconophiles? Do you know? Alot of people are trying to be nice to you by telling you to read some more.

Why do you ignore them?




Quote
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.

Why do you keep ignoring the plee of others? They are trying to tell you nicely that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's one Person in Two Natures as well as of Two Natures, not the two natures making the one person.  

Icons image the whole Person in the same way that our blessed Mother is the Mother of the whole Person.

We are not confusing natures by calling our blessed Mother Theotokos just as we are not confusing natures when it comes to the Icons of Christ.

Why? Because the Person is a Divine Person! Both before as well as after the Incarnation! Thus one Divine Person in two Natures.

You seem to be confusing Person and Nature. Before the Incarnation the Divine Person only had one Nature and that was the Divine Nature.

At the Incarnation the Divine Person added a second Nature, and so it is one Person in two Natures.


Alfred Persson,


If you were present when our Lord was born, would you be able to worship him? Would you be able to worship Him as an Infant?

Was doubting Thomas in error when he touched his flesh and said "My Lord and My God"? According to you he was....or must have been!

John 20:27-29
"Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”


Do you worship the Person or Just the Divine Nature only? Also, did God Incarnate die on the Cross?

You seem to be confusing Person and Nature.







ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: theistgal on August 03, 2010, 11:30:47 PM
If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet.  But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate.

Well, I think it's probably a little too late to avoid polluting the Internet.  ;D

Also, if you Google the OP's name you'll find that he's been polluting an awful lot of other religious boards/blogs/discussions besides this one, for a few years, so one more isn't going to make that much difference. ::)  ;)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 03, 2010, 11:50:09 PM
Let's start over from the beginning.

John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible.

You should make reference to what St John wrote. Here is a good starting point.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xvi.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xvi.html)

Quote
God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Quote
Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God;

It is not a denial that Jesus is God, only an affirmation that Jesus has a visible form.

Quote
2)The Word became male human flesh.

Depicting the Word as human flesh affirms that it was the Word that became flesh. If the Word had not become flesh, then it would be improper to depict Him as such, but He did so we do.

Quote
Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

We depict the person, not the nature. The Second Person of the Trinity has a physical human body, so we depict Him with one.

Quote
One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude

Icons use visual aspects to represent the person, not just their flesh.

Quote
and making Him like His creation.

The Second Person of the Trinity did become like His creation in the incarnation.

Quote
It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.

God had not revealed himself to them in a visible form. That is why they could not use one to depict Him.

Quote
Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.

The spirit was that they could not depict God in a form that they did not know Him to exist in. We now know the Second Person of the Trinity to exist as a human person. That is why He is depicted as such.

Quote
Contrary to John D's citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve.


They were commanded to give the greatest amount of honor and respect to Ark of the Covenant. It was so holy that they could not so much as touch it out of respect. According to 1Kings 8:30, people were to pray towards the temple. In 1Chron 16:4, David commanded levites to miniter before the Ark. in verse 36 (LXX) or 37 (MT) depending on which translation you read, this was done continually.

Quote
He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):

That verse was referring to the Athenians who made images of false gods out of ignorance of who the true God is. God was only willing to wink at their error of they were to repent from seving their false gods and serve Him upon hearing the truth, because after that they were no longer ignorant.

Quote
Abraham planted a grove

Gen 21:33 "Then Abraham planted a field at the Well of Oath, and there he called on the name of the Lord."-Orthodox Study Bible

33. Abraham planted a grove—Hebrew, “of tamarisks,” in which sacrificial worship was offered, as in a roofless temple.
[1]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Ge 21:33). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Jacob set up a pillar

Gen 18:16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "The Lord is in this place, and I did not know it."
Gen 18:17 So he was afraid and said "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."
Gen 18:18 Now Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone he put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it.-Orthodox Study Bible

This veneration was not acceptable to God as He later forbade both in Deuteronomy 16:21f

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.

The groves and pillars spoken of in Deut. were used by other nations for worshipping their false gods. God commanded these things not to be built because of the association these things had with false gods. Also at this point, they were to go to the tabernacle to make their sacrifices to God and nowhere else. This is about how and where it is acceptable to worship God at that time, not about how God can or cannot be depicted.

It's real simple. God became a man, so we depict Him as one.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 03, 2010, 11:59:46 PM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.


Back when I was in school.....a very long time ago, the professors knew who did and didn't do their homework! They knew who did and didn't put the time in to actually know the stuff they were talking about.

I remember times in where I was scared to ask a question in Calculus because I knew I didn't put in the work, and the teachers would always scold us whenever we asked a question or stated something.

They knew the stuff, while we didn't, and they were able to tell if one did the hard work by putting in the time or not.


But for some reason, you are not seeing this.








ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 04, 2010, 12:01:59 AM
I recall obeying that myself,


Were you ever at a point in your life where you did accept the theology of Icons? Just curious.

Quote
and haven't looked back at my former life wanting anything, these 30+ years Jesus has always been with me, never forsaking me. And He will do the same for you, but you must repent, and confess He is LORD in public, before the eyes of angels and men.

Icons do proclaim that Jesus is LORD. That's what the "OwN" you see in most icons means. It's the name of God given to Moses on Mt. Sainai in greek.

I'm sorry you fail to see us as having Christ.  :(
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 12:10:46 AM

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Thanks for responding to the argument.

You  argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.

Therefore your exegesis is impossible.

Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including those imaging human flesh.

Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.

So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial 1)He is God, or 2)came in human flesh.


The rest of what you say is germane only if you can refute the above, so until then, lets focus on Deut 4:15f.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Paisius on August 04, 2010, 12:33:22 AM
Thank you for this. As a new convert, this is the clearest, most detailed explanation I have seen and I appreciated reading it. I'd understood the part about the incarnation and the ability to have icons because of that, but I hadn't seen this explanation based on the passage in Deuteronomy.


And Thankful don't let anyone fool you. Modern Protestantism, just like Byzantine iconoclasm, is nothing more than Platonic, neo-pagan humanism couched in Christian terminology. It was and is a lie about God and about man.



In Christ
Joe
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: LBK on August 04, 2010, 12:34:03 AM
The kontakion (sermon-hymn) for the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, commemorated on the first Sunday of Great Lent:

The indefinable Word of the Father made Himself definable, having taken flesh from you, O Mother of God, and having refashioned the soiled image of man to its former state, has suffused it with divine beauty. Confessing salvation, we proclaim it in deed and word.

From St John of Damascus' treatise On the Defense of the Holy Images (which Alfred Persson does not seem to have read and absorbed yet):

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

St John also responded to the arguments of those who regarded Old Testament prohibitions of religious imagery as also applying to the Church:

Since the invisible One became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

And this, surely a masterpiece of brevity which yet contains a such great wealth of truth:

Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

To deny the place of iconography is to deny the very incarnation of God. This was the fatal flaw of the iconoclasts. Sadly, successive eras have repeatedly revived iconoclasm in various forms, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 04, 2010, 12:37:48 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.



Quote
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This is talking about the ancient Jews before the Incarnation.


Quote
You  argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.

Of course they saw human males, but they never saw God as a human in the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb.

Similitude = visible likeness, image, a point of comparison......etc.

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense to me. The text seems to say that God didn't want them to make a human likeness of Him because they never saw Him.

And you keep ignoring most things that everyone is saying. You are starting to make this thread of yours pointless and fruitless.


Quote
Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including those imaging human flesh.


In the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb. That is the context. I don't know if you know this but Revelation is progressive. We see this throughout the Old Testament as well as how the New Testament reflects on the Old.


Quote
Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.

You reason like a kid. It's obvious from the text itself that it is talking about "In the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb"

The context is not talking about the Incarnation for it didn't happen back then.

Quote
So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial 1)He is God, or 2)came in human flesh.

It's an affirmation that God became Incarnate!

But I'm sure you will ignore all this just like you do most posts! Stop setting up strawmen













ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 04, 2010, 12:41:58 AM

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Thanks for responding to the argument.

You  argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

Not exactly. I argue against any image, because God had not revealed Himself as having any image. This would at that time include human males.

Quote
BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.

They did see human males, but God had not revealed Himself as one until the incarnation. They could not use what was not revealed to them.

Quote
Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including human flesh.

Because He had not yet revealed Himself as a man having human flesh.

Quote
Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.

Only if it depicts a similitude of God that He has not revealed Himself as. They could not depict God as a human male because God had not revealed Himself to them as a human male. God has revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, who is a human male, so we depict Him as such. The icon is of Christ, the person, not all of male humanity.

Quote
So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial He is God, or came in human flesh.

An icon is of a person, not just a nature, not just a body.

Quote
The rest of what you say is germane only if you can refute the above, so until then, lets focus on Deut 4:15f.

So let's focus on the above, that is if that really is the key to this discussion.

What do you think an icon represents?

Do you understand that icons say something theological?

Maybe this might help as a point of reference for this discussion.
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/25959502@N02/2441707836/sizes/m/)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 01:07:57 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John of Damascus' rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 04, 2010, 01:30:28 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this! Just as you ignore the context of Scripture when it says "ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb"

The Incarnation happened AFTER that day in which the Lord Spoke to them in Choreb. Therefore it is ok to make Icons of God Incarnate.

And so the difference is time......Revelation is progressive!







ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 01:42:26 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!


ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is your choice of these 2 possibilities:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Pick one.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 04, 2010, 01:46:53 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!


ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.

I also answered your two questions! If not most of your stuff.....in which you just keep ignoring!











ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 01:49:35 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!


ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.









ICXC NIKA


Prove its relevance...show how that destroys the need to pick one of these two possibilities:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 04, 2010, 01:52:47 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!


ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.









ICXC NIKA


Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already answered your two choices! Your choices are flawed because they ignore a vital context of the Scripture mentioned.

And this wasn't the first flaw you made on the thread.







ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 01:54:39 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!


ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.









ICXC NIKA


Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already did!









ICXC NIKA

That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 04, 2010, 01:56:55 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!


ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.









ICXC NIKA


Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already did!

ICXC NIKA

That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.



Then re-read it after Glenn Beck is over!









ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 02:01:34 AM
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



Quote
1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote
OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!


ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.









ICXC NIKA


Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already did!

ICXC NIKA

That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.



Then re-read it after Glenn Beck is over!









ICXC NIKA

I don't believe you had a point...you are evading you must choose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ


I'll be back...


If any see realize how foolish icons are and desire Christ indwelling, do as the apostle Paul said:

 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
 (Rom 10:8-11 KJV)

Repent and confess Christ in public, before the eyes of men and angel, and the LORD will hasten to you.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 02:11:11 AM

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Thanks for responding to the argument.

you might return the favor:
You have a whole thread here for your views.

otherwise, we must apply the principle of qui tacet consentit, and accept your silence as an admission of defeat.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Robert W on August 04, 2010, 02:18:16 AM
Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?
Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors.  Yes/no?
Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?
Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?
The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.

This is the second time I post this.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 02:36:46 AM
That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

pointing out the shortcomings of your prattle isn't an ad hominem, a point you miss.


Quote
Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread,

Nor any of St. John, or the thread on your views
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.new.html#new
Quote
Glen Beck is on soon.
Are you a fellow Mormon?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 03:07:24 AM
I don't believe you had a point...you are evading you must choose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Quote
I'll be back...

So will Christ. And we celebrate the Restoration of the Icons, the Triumph of Orthodoxy, because the Orhtodox Church has alone remained as Christ left her, neither adding nor subtracting anything, for pure and whole we must present her at His Second and Dread Coming.


Quote
If any see realize how foolish icons are and desire Christ indwelling, do as the apostle Paul said:

II Peter 3:15 Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Do as the apostle Paul said:"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." II Thessalonians 2:15..."Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you." I Corinthians 11:2...."Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." II Thessalonians 3:6.


Quote
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
 (Rom 10:8-11 KJV)

we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour(Heb. 2:9)
(http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/ynk17.jpg)

Quote
Repent and confess Christ in public, before the eyes of men and angel, and the LORD will hasten to you.
The Lord's sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:)21Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.

The LORD said to His Church: "He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me." Having rejected the Church, upon what can you stand? Christ found His Church upon the Rock, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.  Your sand will sink you.

Glen Beck is over. Red Eye is on.

P.S. Cartago delenda est. Qui tacet consentit.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459840/topicseen.html#msg459840
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 03:16:11 AM
If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet.  But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate.

Well, I think it's probably a little too late to avoid polluting the Internet.  ;D

Also, if you Google the OP's name you'll find that he's been polluting an awful lot of other religious boards/blogs/discussions besides this one, for a few years, so one more isn't going to make that much difference. ::)  ;)
Does his "arguments" fall as flat elsewhere?  Hopefully someone would google his name and find this.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459840/topicseen.html#msg459840
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Nigula Qian Zishi on August 04, 2010, 08:44:43 AM
Alf, I just answered Deuteronomy 4:16 for you. God requires the Israelites to have images of angels where they worship. Our temples have icons of angels too, as well as icons that are typed from the original icons painted/written by St Luke the Apostle of both Christ the Pantocrator and the Theotokos.

Detailed instructions are given by God for the plan of the Ark: it is to be 2½ cubits in length, 1½ in breadth, and 1½ in height (as 21⁄2×11⁄2×11⁄2 royal cubits or 1.31×0.79×0.79 m). Then it is to be plated entirely with gold, and a crown or molding of gold is to be put around it. Four rings of gold are to be put into its four feet—two on each side—and through these rings staves of shittim-wood overlaid with gold for carrying the Ark are to be inserted; and these are not to be removed. A golden cover, adorned with golden cherubim, is to be placed above the Ark. The Ark is finally to be placed behind a veil (Parochet), a full description of which is also given. (http://ecumenicalbuddhism.blogspot.com/2010/08/tabernacles-and-arks-of-old-covenant.html)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 04, 2010, 09:25:25 AM
You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a third option. NO SIMILITUDE WAS SEEN. That is why it could not be imaged. A similitude was not revealed, therefore could not be imaged, until the incarnation. At which point it could be imaged, because it was seen.

Quote
the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause

The prohibition is a "because you haven't seen it" clause. It says "for ye saw no manner of similitude". That means "you haven't seen it". This was on the day that the Lord spoke to them.

Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

Things changed when God revealed a similitude to us that "we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth". As St John (the apostle) says elsewhere

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"

Quote
Pick one.

I pick the third option. It's the one that says God became man and we saw Him.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 09:59:36 AM
Alfred, you're the only one proving yourself to be an Arian.  Christ, True God of True God, Incarnate, was both God and Man, and dwelt among us.  Continuing the iconographic tradition that depicts Christ in the flesh is no more heretical than St. Peter looking upon Christ with his eyes, and beholding Incarnate God.  Deuteronomy 4:15 is right in its context, for God had not come down and dwelt among mankind.  But Christ, the Son of God, True God of True God, Incarnate, came into the world - and therefore, since He was truly seen, touched, and heard by mankind, He can be then seen (icon), touched (communion), and heard (the Gospel) by us now.  Those who claim that icons cannot be made because of the prohibition of Deut. 4:15 are thus also claiming that God did not dwell amongst us, for the prohibition was against creating an idol of an apparition, creating an image of an appearance or vision.  If you are here to chide us for icons of the Incarnate God, claiming that He cannot be imaged because of Deut. 4:15, then you deny the Incarnation and the very Creed you have stated you believe in (the original Nicean Creed).
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 10:32:57 AM
Alfred, you're the only one proving yourself to be an Arian.  Christ, True God of True God, Incarnate, was both God and Man, and dwelt among us.  Continuing the iconographic tradition that depicts Christ in the flesh is no more heretical than St. Peter looking upon Christ with his eyes, and beholding Incarnate God.  Deuteronomy 4:15 is right in its context, for God had not come down and dwelt among mankind.  But Christ, the Son of God, True God of True God, Incarnate, came into the world - and therefore, since He was truly seen, touched, and heard by mankind, He can be then seen (icon), touched (communion), and heard (the Gospel) by us now.  Those who claim that icons cannot be made because of the prohibition of Deut. 4:15 are thus also claiming that God did not dwell amongst us, for the prohibition was against creating an idol of an apparition, creating an image of an appearance or vision.  If you are here to chide us for icons of the Incarnate God, claiming that He cannot be imaged because of Deut. 4:15, then you deny the Incarnation and the very Creed you have stated you believe in (the original Nicean Creed).

If you don't mind, Father, I'll repost your post:
Alfred Persson,

You have yet to respond to the points of discussion directed to your assertions in the following thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

Have a nice day.

IIRC according to the canons, if one ignores a summons three times, the Word of the Lord's is fullfilled.
Quote
Mat.18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Shlomlokh on August 04, 2010, 10:45:06 AM


I already did!









ICXC NIKA

That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.

Where in the Bible does it say that you should watch TV?  ???

Also, are you familiar with the term prelest?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 10:51:55 AM
If you don't mind, Father, I'll repost your post:

I don't mind at all.  Thank you for your work in these two threads, by the way.

IIRC according to the canons, if one ignores a summons three times, the Word of the Lord's is fullfilled.
Quote
Mat.18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 11:51:24 AM
I wanted to post this in a new thread, its a different argument...evidently that's not allowed. That's unfortunate, I hate to see these two distinct arguments get confused.


The "Apologia of St John Damascene Against Iconoclasts" is an argument by analogy: The similitude of God is like the Incarnate body of God:

"And the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the voice of His words, but you saw not any form at all." (Deut. 4.12) And shortly afterwards: "Keep your souls carefully. You saw not any similitude in the day that the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived you might make you a graven similitude, or image of male and female......
The Scripture says, "You have not seen the likeness of Him." (Ex. 33.20) What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible? How picture the inconceivable? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.-Apologia of St John Damascene Against Iconoclasts, I "You have not seen the likeness of Him" paraphrases Deut 4:12, not Ex 33:20.

" When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form."-Ibid, I.

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.


If this is not correct, John's argument fails. So the question is, "Did God say the Israelites could image His similitude had they seen it?" Was the fact its unlike anything in the experience of man the reason we cannot image it?

"So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image the likeness of male or female. 17. the likeness of any cattle on the earth, or the likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven. 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, or in the likeness of any fish in the waters beneath the earth."-Deu 4:15-18 Orthodox Bible.

No because this context is Moses' exegesis of the second commandment, which adds infinite heaven, where every possible image would exist, to the list of areas containing forbidden likenesses of His similitude:

"You shall not make yourself an image, neither any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth."-Deu 5:8 OB

God had revealed Himself in fire at Horeb, condescending to a Personal relationship with HIs people. It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as some dungy image as they communed with His Spirit.

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 OB

When the transcendent God becomes a detestable image in the psyche of man, any personal relationship with God is defiled, driving God away:

"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OP

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: theistgal on August 04, 2010, 11:58:29 AM
 Do you think it's idolatry to carry a photo of a loved one in your pocket and occasionally take it out to look at it, perhaps even kiss it, because you love the person in the photo? 
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Aindriú on August 04, 2010, 12:14:43 PM
I have only just found this thread, and I have to say, as an outsider, Mr. Persson, you do not seem actually present to argue. There has been many attempts at a debate, however I've seen either a response by either ignoring the debating point or simply dismissing it (I presume because it places you at a disadvantage in the debate. Instead of arguing out of the disadvantage or in turn acknowledging it as such, you merely avoid it at all possibility.) Trying to maintain control of the convesationin this way does nothing for your position, and as such, you appear severely unconvincing.

I wrote this as an outsider in hopes that you wouldn't ignore me, as well.

God bless.  
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 12:23:18 PM
You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a third option. NO SIMILITUDE WAS SEEN. That is why it could not be imaged. A similitude was not revealed, therefore could not be imaged, until the incarnation. At which point it could be imaged, because it was seen.

Quote
the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause

The prohibition is a "because you haven't seen it" clause. It says "for ye saw no manner of similitude". That means "you haven't seen it". This was on the day that the Lord spoke to them.

Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

Things changed when God revealed a similitude to us that "we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth". As St John (the apostle) says elsewhere

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"

Quote
Pick one.

I pick the third option. It's the one that says God became man and we saw Him.

Excellent, but I anticipated some would think that, and refuted your third option as a possibility:

" When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form."-Ibid, I

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

If this is not correct, John's argument fails. So the question is, "Did God say the Israelites could image His similitude had they seen it?" Was the fact its unlike anything in the experience of man the reason we cannot image it?

"So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image the likeness of male or female. 17. the likeness of any cattle on the earth, or the likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven. 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, or in the likeness of any fish in the waters beneath the earth."-Deu 4:15-18 Orthodox Bible.

No because this context is Moses' exegesis of the second commandment, which adds infinite heaven, where every possible image would exist, to the list of areas containing forbidden likenesses of His similitude:

"You shall not make yourself an image, neither any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth."-Deu 5:8 OB

God had revealed Himself in fire at Horeb, condescending to a Personal relationship with HIs people. It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as some dungy image as they communed with His Spirit.

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 OB

When the transcendent God becomes a detestable image in the psyche of man, any personal relationship with God is defiled, driving God away:

"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OB

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 12:42:42 PM
I have only just found this thread, and I have to say, as an outsider, Mr. Persson, you do not seem actually present to argue. There has been many attempts at a debate, however I've seen either a response by either ignoring the debating point or simply dismissing it (I presume because it places you at a disadvantage in the debate. Instead of arguing out of the disadvantage or in turn acknowledging it as such, you merely avoid it at all possibility.) Trying to maintain control of the convesationin this way does nothing for your position, and as such, you appear severely unconvincing.

I wrote this as an outsider in hopes that you wouldn't ignore me, as well.

God bless.  

I don't respond to ad hominem, nor to tangents, or evasion.

Nor to folks who ignore my argument but want to make their own.

I would only respond to their argument, if they first addressed mine. Then after that was resolved, if their point was relevant, I'd discuss it.

I might treat their argument if they make a separate thread....

But not here...not until they answer my argument.


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Aindriú on August 04, 2010, 12:51:02 PM
Excellent, but I anticipated some would think that, and refuted your third option as a possibility:

" When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form."-Ibid, I

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

If this is not correct, John's argument fails. So the question is, "Did God say the Israelites could image His similitude had they seen it?" Was the fact its unlike anything in the experience of man the reason we cannot image it?

"So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image the likeness of male or female. 17. the likeness of any cattle on the earth, or the likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven. 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, or in the likeness of any fish in the waters beneath the earth."-Deu 4:15-18 Orthodox Bible.

No because this context is Moses' exegesis of the second commandment, which adds infinite heaven, where every possible image would exist, to the list of areas containing forbidden likenesses of His similitude:

"You shall not make yourself an image, neither any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth."-Deu 5:8 OB

God had revealed Himself in fire at Horeb, condescending to a Personal relationship with HIs people. It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as some dungy image as they communed with His Spirit.

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 OB

When the transcendent God becomes a detestable image in the psyche of man, any personal relationship with God is defiled, driving God away:

"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OB

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)

From how I see it, the problem here is a lack of "shared mental model".

At the time of the OT, God has never revealed himself except by forces of nature (fire, smoke, sound, etc.) True?

However, the Orthodox perspective (if I may attempt) sees God as revealed as "three in one"/ "united in essence, though separate in person" as the nature of God.

Therefore, by the time of the NT, they see God revealed in three ways. God the Son, is revealed as Jesus Christ, God the Holy Spirit has only been described as "like a dove" (or after the great flood, a dove appeared with an olive branch, and God the Father has not revealed himself in any form.

Therefore, in concern of statues/icon of God. You will/should only witness God as Jesus Christ. You may see the Holy Spirit as a dove, and God the Father is almost never depicted(because we have never seen Him).

I say almost, because I have seen an icon before that attempted to depict the Divine Trinity. In which, it shown three identical angelic (winged) persons sitting at a table.

My point: Orthodox imagery attempt to portray God only as he has revealed himself to us. Anything else would do a severe disservice to the majesty of His Being.

Do you find this controversial as well?



::EDITED for correctness, because I type like have hooves.::
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 12:59:16 PM
I don't respond to ad hominem, nor to tangents, or evasion.

"I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ad Hominem: (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Quote
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem  (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to link the validity  of a premise  to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1]  The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]  The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

An ad hominem would be calling you an idiot, which no one here is doing.  Pointing out that you're arguing from a misinformed position, drawing faulty conclusions, and refusing to explore either of those principles, is not argumentum ad hominem, but rather pointing out the faulty starting position of your argument, which then weakens the conclusion until it is indefensible.

By the way, you have yet to address the arguments in the following thread, which are all focused on iconography: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

Nor to folks who ignore my argument but want to make their own.

You've ignored every point about iconography made in the following thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

You've also ignored many points made in this thread.  I don't have much hope that you'll catch up anytime soon.

I would only respond to their argument, if they first addressed mine. Then after that was resolved, if their point was relevant, I'd discuss it.

I might treat their argument if they make a separate thread....

But not here...not until they answer my argument.

So you want to enter discussion, but not if people don't keep the discussion in the direction you want it?  Then just provide a monologue and step back - once you create a discussion, you don't have much control on the direction it takes.  You create a debate by "proving" that St. John of Damascus' exegesis is incorrect; when others point out that his exegesis is supported by things he writes later in his treatises, you patently refuse to check that information out, and instead continue to insist that we comment on your "refutation," despite the fact that your refutation makes no sense in the larger context of what St. John has written.

You then are annoyed that others comment on your style of argumentation, and others still engage your essential debate (whether iconography is OK) without regard to your thus-far-faulty-"refutation" of St. John.  You'll have to "wake up" to reality, which is that you're facing a multi-faceted argument, all directed at your OP:

- You have misinterpreted St. John and the strength of his position
- You have misinterpreted scriptures in your zeal to reject iconography
- You have demonstrated an inability to engage in group dialogue, wishing to dictate the terms of discussion to an extreme degree

You should try and keep up with all three of those discussions, because a weakness or failure on any one of the above destroys the tenuous point you've made in your OP.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 01:04:29 PM
I don't respond to ad hominem, nor to tangents, or evasion.

"I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ad Hominem: (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Quote
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem  (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to link the validity  of a premise  to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1]  The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]  The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

An ad hominem would be calling you an idiot, which no one here is doing.  Pointing out that you're arguing from a misinformed position, drawing faulty conclusions, and refusing to explore either of those principles, is not argumentum ad hominem, but rather pointing out the faulty starting position of your argument, which then weakens the conclusion until it is indefensible.

By the way, you have yet to address the arguments in the following thread, which are all focused on iconography: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

Nor to folks who ignore my argument but want to make their own.

You've ignored every point about iconography made in the following thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

You've also ignored many points made in this thread.  I don't have much hope that you'll catch up anytime soon.

I would only respond to their argument, if they first addressed mine. Then after that was resolved, if their point was relevant, I'd discuss it.

I might treat their argument if they make a separate thread....

But not here...not until they answer my argument.

So you want to enter discussion, but not if people don't keep the discussion in the direction you want it?  Then just provide a monologue and step back - once you create a discussion, you don't have much control on the direction it takes.  You create a debate by "proving" that St. John of Damascus' exegesis is incorrect; when others point out that his exegesis is supported by things he writes later in his treatises, you patently refuse to check that information out, and instead continue to insist that we comment on your "refutation," despite the fact that your refutation makes no sense in the larger context of what St. John has written.

You then are annoyed that others comment on your style of argumentation, and others still engage your essential debate (whether iconography is OK) without regard to your thus-far-faulty-"refutation" of St. John.  You'll have to "wake up" to reality, which is that you're facing a multi-faceted argument, all directed at your OP:

- You have misinterpreted St. John and the strength of his position
- You have misinterpreted scriptures in your zeal to reject iconography
- You have demonstrated an inability to engage in group dialogue, wishing to dictate the terms of discussion to an extreme degree

You should try and keep up with all three of those discussions, because a weakness or failure on any one of the above destroys the tenuous point you've made in your OP.

Enjoy.

There is only one of me, and many of you....I can't discuss everything under the sun, don't have time.

I have time only to answer those who answer me.

 29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one question; then answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things: (Mar 11:29 NKJ)

AND I don't respond to claims:

- You have misinterpreted St. John and the strength of his position
- You have misinterpreted scriptures in your zeal to reject iconography
- You have demonstrated an inability to engage in group dialogue, wishing to dictate the terms of discussion to an extreme degree

Only the first was relevant, but its a claim, not an argument...you offer no proof at all. Had you cited the precise words of John of Damascus that contradicted my argument, then I would respond.

But you just make claims...

I hope that gives you joy.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Aindriú on August 04, 2010, 01:19:21 PM
Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.

The problem I have with both of these, is it assumes the worst from the Christian. It would suppose that an individual is unable to be particular with their own worship. That is, the are required to be unable to determine the direction of their worship and the lack of importance they place in the actual icon.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 01:20:32 PM
There is only one of me, and many of you....I can't discuss everything under the sun, don't have time.

You obviously do have the time to be on here.  There isn't that much for you to respond to.  Instead of responding to my post, you could have responded to one of the nearly-countless other posts that have addressed your arguments with arguments.

I have time only to answer those who answer me.

You haven't done that yet, so I have no reason to believe you.

AND I don't respond to claims:

I only summarized the arguments made here and in the other thread, not for you to respond to them, but so you could possibly understand what angles each of the arguments are hitting at.  Since you have not responded to most of the arguments made against your position here, I had to assume that you either did not understand their scope, or were not online; at least I know that the latter is untrue.

Only the first was relevant, but its a claim, not an argument...you offer no proof at all. Had you cited the precise words of John D that contradicted my argument, then I would respond.

Actually, proof had been offered to you beforehand:

Here.  I practically have to put the nipple in your mouth:
Three treatises on the divine images By John (of Damascus, Saint.), Andrew Louth
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_U1mtafEPMC&pg=PA90&dq=John+of+Damascus+on+the+divine+images+4:15&hl=en&ei=65hXTM3QBIyJnQfpnM3YCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

You are the one who has raised the "idolatry" allegation against the Orthodox, by invoking St John of Damascus. If you wish to have a truly objective discussion on this matter, then take the time to read and absorb what St John has written in the defense of icons, as linked to by ialmisry. Here's another link, to an HTML of the same document:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html#PART%20I

Also, again - "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Claim: (from dictionary.com)
Quote
n.
6. a demand for something as due; an assertion of a right or an alleged right: He made unreasonable claims on the doctor's time.
7. an assertion of something as a fact: He made no claims to originality.
8. a right to claim or demand; a just title to something: His claim to the heavyweight title is disputed.
9. something that is claimed, esp. a piece of public land for which formal request is made for mining or other purposes.
10. a request or demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy, a workers' compensation law, etc.: We filed a claim for compensation from the company.

Argument: (also from dictionary.com)
Quote
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.
6. subject matter; theme: The central argument of his paper was presented clearly.
7. an abstract or summary of the major points in a work of prose or poetry, or of sections of such a work.
8. Mathematics.
a. an independent variable of a function.
b. Also called amplitude. the angle made by a given vector with the reference axis.
c. the angle corresponding to a point representing a given complex number in polar coordinates. Compare principal argument.
9. Computers. a variable in a program, to which a value will be assigned when the program is run: often given in parentheses following a function name and used to calculate the function.
10. Obsolete.
a. evidence or proof.
b. a matter of contention.

My points above are indeed arguments, thank you.

I hope that gives you joy.

What will give me joy is when the lost sheep returns to the fold.  Until then, I wait.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 01:25:03 PM
I see you've added something to your post:

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one question; then answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things: (Mar 11:29 NKJ)

I will accept that line viz-a-viz our discussion with you, but only once you have established yourself (a) as a knowledgeable teacher (which you haven't, since you've only made 1 assertion and it is based on faulty logic and incomplete research), or (b) as our Lord, which I don't forsee.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: samkim on August 04, 2010, 03:43:49 PM
AND I don't respond to claims:

- You have misinterpreted scriptures in your zeal to reject iconography
- You have demonstrated an inability to engage in group dialogue, wishing to dictate the terms of discussion to an extreme degree

How are these two not relevant to your argument? If either of these are true, you have no case!

Anyway, I maintain that your implicit presupposition, that somehow an individual can interpret the Old Testament apart from the Orthodox tradition, is wrong. The group that gave authority to the Bible interprets it. It's our book.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 03:47:08 PM
Anyway, I maintain that your implicit presupposition, that somehow an individual can interpret the Old Testament apart from the Orthodox tradition, is wrong.

And, unfortunately, it will be a dividing point between his position and ours.  We will have the countless interpretations of scripture of the many saints of the Church - most of whom had memorized the scripture, and he will only have his own (flawed from our POV) perspective.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 04:00:09 PM
I wanted to post this in a new thread, its a different argument...evidently that's not allowed. That's unfortunate, I hate to see these two distinct arguments get confused.

LOL.  I thought so: quick thinking on the part of the mods. You are confused about them being seperate: the loom of Orthodoxy both weaves the seamless garment of the Church, and takes the stray threads of heresy and brades them into a firm cord by which the lost sheep maybe lassoed.


Quote
The "Apologia of St John Damascene Against Iconoclasts" is an argument by analogy

No, not in the excerpt you quote.  He does not argue from particular to particular because, as St. John explicitely demonstrates the one particular-the depictable likeness (what you call similtude) of God before the Incarnation-does not exist.

Quote
The similitude of God is like the Incarnate body of God:

As much as you like the tread the oranges to make the apple juice (hard cider?), I'm going to clean up your terminology.
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the llikeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton
καὶ φυλάξεσθε σφόδρα τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ὅτι οὐκ εἴδετε ὁμοίωμα ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν χωρηβ ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός
μὴ ἀνομήσητε καὶ ποιήσητε ὑμῖν ἑαυτοῖς γλυπτὸν ὁμοίωμα πᾶσαν εἰκόνα ὁμοίωμα ἀρσενικοῦ ἢ θηλυκοῦ

ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος  
Phillipians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance [σχῆμα:outward appearance, form, shape] as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The word you harp on in Deuteronomy is the same St. Paul uses in Phillipians: ὁμοίωμα that which is made like (something); likeness, form, appearance.  St. Paul addresses your usage in Romans 1:23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like [i.e. "in the likeness of the image of"] to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Since the Church has used the terms "image" and "likeness" since she wrote the Bible, we should stick with them.  The question them becomes since Christ came in the likeness of man, was He a man, or not?  Was He in the likeness of a man before he came, or not?  Scripture answers those questions:
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, form of God
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος form of servant

The Word was in the form of God, i.e. God; but he took the form of man. He became what He was not.  So "The similitude of God is" NOT "like the Incarnate body of God": as St. John points out.
Quote
These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry. Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in leading strings. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error, to be with God in the knowledge of the truth, to worship God alone, to enjoy the fulness of His knowledge. We have passed the stage of infancy, and reached the perfection of manhood. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be imaged and what may not. The Scripture says, ' You have not seen the likeness of Him.' What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible ? How picture the inconceivable ? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible ? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nkZGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9&dq=John+Damascus+form+of+a+servant&hl=en&ei=wsRZTMjRMYXInAfpnLiNCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
 He bore the likeness of His Father from before the ages, but bore the likeness of His mother only after He (once she consented) took it, considerably after Moses put the veil on his face coming down from Sinai. The likeness of His incarnate body is ours, not His by nature. He still, by nature, bears the likeness of His Father.

Quote
"And the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the voice of His words, but you saw not any form at all." (Deut. 4.12)

καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός φωνὴν ῥημάτων ὑμεῖς ἠκούσατε καὶ ὁμοίωμα οὐκ εἴδετε ἀλλ' ἢ φωνήν Of course they saw no form at all: God had no likeness to man.  In fact, having no likeness to man, God had no tongue and hence neither voice nor speech nor language. They heard only a verbal image created by God analogous to the images shown Moses on the mountain, created out of matter by the command of God .  As our Father St. John quotes our Father St. Leontios of Neapolis against the rabbis "In worshipping the book of the law, you are not worshipping parchment or colour, but God's words contained in it. So do I worship the image of Christ, neither wood nor colouring for themselves." St. John asks:

Quote
Answer me this question. Is there only one God? You answer, "Yes, there is only one Law-giver." Why, then, does He command contrary things? The cherubim are not outside of creation; why, then, does He allow cherubim carved by the hand of man to overshadow the mercy-scat? Is it not evident that as it is impossible to make an image of God, who is uncircumscribed and impassible, or of one like to God, creation should not be worshipped as God. He allows the image of the cherubim who are circumscribed, and prostrate in adoration before the divine throne, to be made, and thus prostrate to overshadow the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark and staff and mercy-seat were not made? Are they not produced by the hand of man? Are they not due to what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Was it not a type and a figure? Hence the holy Apostle's words concerning the observances of the law, "Who serve unto the example and shadow, of heavenly things." As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: "See" (He says), "that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the Mount." (Heb. 8.5; Ex. 25.40) But the law was not an image. It shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, "the law contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things." (Heb. 10.1) For if the law should forbid images, and yet be itself a forerunner of images, what should we say? If the tabernacle was a figure, and the type of a type, why does the law not prohibit image-making? But this is not in the least the case. There is a time for everything. (Eccl. 3.1)

And in the fullness of time God the Word took flesh and dwelt among, taking the likeness of us men so that we beheld the likeness of His Father. We celebrate that this month
(http://www.stpeterorthodoxchurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Transfig.jpg)
That's Moses, btw, on the right bearing witness to seeing on Tabor He Whom he could not see on Sinai (Exodus 33:20). But back to your false witness against St. John.

Quote
And shortly afterwards: "Keep your souls carefully. You saw not any similitude in the day that the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived you might make you a graven similitude, or image of male and female......
The Scripture says, "You have not seen the likeness of Him." (Ex. 33.20) What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible? How picture the inconceivable? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.-Apologia of St John Damascene Against Iconoclasts [/color]"You have not seen the likeness of Him" paraphrases Deut 4:12, not Ex 33:20.
Exodus 33:20 "But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth....He shewed unto them His hands and His side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD....and then saith He....behold...and be not faithless, but believing. (20:20,27)
(http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/images/thomas.jpg)
"My LORD and My God."

Quote
" When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form."

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it,
That's not St. John's implied premise, it is God's explicit statement.
Quote
9Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons; 10Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. 11And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. 12And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. 13And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. 14And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

15Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 19And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
Quote
therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth....(Luke 24:39) Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have....He shewed unto them His hands and His side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you...and then saith He....behold...and be not faithless, but believing.
My LORD and God.

Quote
If this is not correct, John's argument fails.
your putting words in his mouth is incorrect, and his argument succeeds:God prohibits imaging the likeness of God because we cannot see it, therefore God commands portraying the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

God could have appeared to Moses on Sinai in the manner He appeared to Abraham at Mamre, to Isaiah  on the Throne and to Ezekiel at Chebar. But
Quote
5 the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle...6 And He said, If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make Myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude [δόξαν] of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?
Since God spoke not to Moses in a vision, but revealed Himself in His true appearance, i.e. formless, there was no likeness to see, no image to portray. Moses saw His glory not on Sinai, but on Tabor, as shown above. As St. John points out:
Quote
Our Lord called His disciples blessed, saying, "Many kings and prophets have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear and have not heard it. Blessed are your eyes which see and your ears which hear." (Mt. 13.16-17) The apostles saw Christ with their bodily eyes, and His sufferings and wonders, and they listened to His words. We, too, desire to see, and to hear, and to be blessed. They saw Him face to face, as He was present in the body. Now, since he is not present in the body to us, we hear His words from books and are sanctified in spirit by the hearing, and are blessed, and we adore, honouring the books which tell us of His words. So, through the representation of images we look upon His bodily form, and upon His miracles and His sufferings, and are sanctified and satiated, gladdened and blessed. Reverently we worship His bodily form, and contemplating it, we form some notion of His divine glory. For, as we are composed of [90] soul and body, and our soul does not stand alone, but is, as it were, shrouded by a veil, it is impossible for us to arrive at intellectual conceptions without corporeal things. just as we listen with our bodily ears to physical words and understand spiritual things, so, through corporeal vision, we come to the spiritual. On this account Christ took a body and a soul, as man has both one and the other. And baptism likewise is double, of water and the spirit. So is communion and prayer and psalmody; everything has a double signification, a corporeal and a spiritual.

Quote
So the question is, "Did God say the Israelites could image His similitude had they seen it?" Was the fact its unlike anything in the experience of man the reason we cannot image it?

is irrealis moadlity.
Quote
Irrealis modality is a modality that connotes that the proposition with which it is associated is nonactual or nonfactual
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsIrrealisModality.htm

God did not say the Israelites could make an image of His likeness had they seen it, because they couldn not see Him. Your propositon is analgous to "If I were God...."  They could not image it because they could not experience it: they never got to like/unlike.

Quote
"So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image the likeness of male or female. 17. the likeness of any cattle on the earth, or the likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven. 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, or in the likeness of any fish in the waters beneath the earth."-Deu 4:15-18 Orthodox Bible.

No because this context is Moses' exegesis of the second commandment, which adds infinite heaven, where every possible image would exist, to the list of areas containing forbidden likenesses of His similitude:

And?  Man do not see Cherubim either, but God commanded Moses to create images of them according to what He revealed to him on the Mount.  As St. John points out:
Quote
We know that it is impossible to look upon God, or a spirit, or a demon, as they are. They are seen in a certain form, divine providence clothing in type and figure what is without substance or material being, for our instruction, and more intimate knowledge, lest we should be in too great ignorance of God, and of the spirit world. For God is a pure Spirit by His nature. The angel, and a soul, and a demon, compared to God, who alone is incomparable, are bodies; but compared to material bodies, they are bodiless. God therefore, not wishing that we should be in ignorance of spirits, clothed them in type and figure, and in images akin to our nature, material forms visible to the mind in mental vision. These we put into form and shape, for how were the cherubim represented and described in image? But Scripture offers forms and images even of God.

Quote
"You shall not make yourself an image, neither any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth."-Deu 5:8 OB

God had revealed Himself in fire at Horeb, condescending to a Personal relationship with HIs people. It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as some dungy image as they communed with His Spirit.

Agreed.  Therefore St. John tells us
Quote
First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us,"  our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature,* language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.
Therefore, we see Him as He is, rather than visualize Him after our imagination.

Quote
"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 OB

When the transcendent God becomes a detestable image in the psyche of man, any personal relationship with God is defiled, driving God away:

When the transcendent God beame the image and likeness of man, He made a personal realtionship with God possible. It is because the veil of Moses still is over your heart, you cannot see the Lawgiver Who came to His own and His own did not receive Him.

Quote
"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OP
56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8.
Quote
21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)
St. John the Theologian begins
Quote
1:1 That [rather "He"] which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full
Since you reject his words and his successor, you reject Him Who sent him.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 04:03:29 PM
Alfred,

Sort through a few references, if you want to find the Orthodox position on Icons:

http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Icons-Is%20Venerating%20Icons%20Idolatry

http://www.saintkatherineorthodoxchurch.org/articles/icons.htm

Try, as a background, this section (titles "icons") from the Wiki article on the Orthodox Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Icons
Quote
The term 'icon' comes from the Greek word eikona, which simply means image. The Orthodox believe that the first icons of Christ and the Virgin Mary were painted by Luke the Evangelist. Icons are filled with symbolism designed to convey information about the person or event depicted. For this reason, icons tend to be formulaic, following a prescribed methodology for how a particular person should be depicted, including hair style, body position, clothing, and background details. Icon painting, in general, is not an opportunity for artistic expression, though each iconographer brings a vision to the piece. It is far more common for an icon to be copied from an older model, though with the recognition of a new saint in the church, a new icon must be created and approved. The personal and creative traditions of Western European religious art are largely lacking in Orthodox iconography before the 17th century, when Russian iconography began to be strongly influenced by religious paintings and engravings from both Protestant and Roman Catholic Europe. Greek iconography also began to take on a strong western influence for a period and the difference between some Orthodox icons and western religious art began to vanish. More recently there has been a trend of returning to the more traditional and symbolic representations.

Free-standing statues (three dimensional depictions) are almost non-existent within the Orthodox Church. This is partly due to the rejection of the previous pagan Greek age of idol worship and partly because icons are meant to show the spiritual nature of man, not the sensual earthly body. Bas reliefs, however, became common during the Byzantine period and led to a tradition of covering a painted icon in a silver or gold 'riza' in order to preserve the icon. Such bas relief coverings usually leave the faces and hands of the saints exposed for veneration.
The inside of an Orthodox church.

Icons are not considered by the Orthodox to be idols or objects of worship. The parameters of their usage were clearly spelled out by the 7th ecumenical council. Justification for their usage utilises the following logic: before God took human form in Christ, no material depiction was possible and therefore blasphemous even to contemplate. Once God became incarnate, depiction was possible. As Christ is God, it is justified to hold in one's mind the image of God-incarnate. Likewise, when one venerates an icon, it is not the wood or paint that are venerated but rather the individual shown, just as it is not the paper one loves when one might kiss the photograph of a loved one. As Saint Basil famously proclaimed, honour or veneration of the icon always passes to its archetype. Following this reasoning, the veneration of the glorified human saint made in God's image, is always a veneration of the divine image, and hence God as foundational archetype.

Icons can be found adorning the walls of churches and often cover the inside structure completely.[7] Most Orthodox homes have an area set aside for family prayer, usually an eastern facing wall, where are hung many icons. Icons have been part of Orthodox Christianity since the beginning of the church.[38]

Icons are often illuminated by a candle or oil lamp. (Beeswax for candles and olive oil for lamps are preferred because they are natural and burn cleanly.) Besides the practical purpose of making icons visible in an otherwise dark church, both candles and oil lamps symbolise the Light of the World, who is Christ.

Tales of miraculous icons are not uncommon, though it has always been considered that the message of such an event was for the immediate faithful involved and therefore does not usually attract crowds. Some miraculous icons whose reputations span long periods of time nevertheless become objects of pilgrimage along with the places where they are kept. As several Orthodox theologians and saints have explored in the past, the icon's miraculous nature is found not in the material, but in the glory of the saint who is depicted. The icon is a window, in the words of St Paul Florensky, that actually participates in the glory of what it represents.

How about this excerpt from the Wiki article on the 2nd Council of Nicea (7th Ecumenical):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea
Quote
"Proof of the lawfulness of the veneration of icons was drawn from Exodus 25:19 sqq.; Numbers 7:89; Hebrews 9:5 sqq.; Ezekiel 41:18, and Genesis 31:34, but especially from a series of passages of the Church Fathers;[1]  the authority of the latter was decisive."

As a footnote, it references Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York:Random House Inc., 1995. ISBN 0679601481, p.1693.

(Yes, this response is "mailing it in" - it wasn't an exhaustive search by any means.  But I think most of your misunderstanding about icons can be cured even with a quick trip to Wiki, maybe.)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 04:05:08 PM
Alfred,

Are you just preparing to write an article for "Apologetics Press?"  Their material seems similarly shallow viz-a-viz rebuttal of Orthodox (and RC) positions to yours.  I would suggest that if you haven't already considered it, maybe you could contact them to discuss a deal.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: recent convert on August 04, 2010, 04:07:44 PM
Its kind of interesting when one considers that in John 1:18 it is stated that no man has seen God, in John 14:9, Jesus Christ says that those who have seen Him have seen the Father & in Hebrews 11:1 it is stated that faith is the evidence of things not seen. So I guess our eyes are excluded from our faith according to the premise of this thread?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 04:27:23 PM
Btw, since St. John deals with it, will you worship Him?
(http://vultus.stblogs.org/Inexhaustible%20Chalice%205.JPG)
(http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/p/pa/patene-byzantine.jpg)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 04:30:34 PM
Alfred,

Are you just preparing to write an article for "Apologetics Press?"  Their material seems similarly shallow viz-a-viz rebuttal of Orthodox (and RC) positions to yours.  I would suggest that if you haven't already considered it, maybe you could contact them to discuss a deal.
LOL. Did you think of that, Father, because of the similar deal we commeorate on Wednesday?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Shanghaiski on August 04, 2010, 04:32:47 PM
Btw, since St. John deals with it, will you worship Him?
(http://vultus.stblogs.org/Inexhaustible%20Chalice%205.JPG)
(http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/p/pa/patene-byzantine.jpg)

Not if he believes that so many of Jesus' followers left Him in John 6 over a symbolic dispute.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 05:37:40 PM
Anyway, I maintain that your implicit presupposition, that somehow an individual can interpret the Old Testament apart from the Orthodox tradition, is wrong.

And, unfortunately, it will be a dividing point between his position and ours.  We will have the countless interpretations of scripture of the many saints of the Church - most of whom had memorized the scripture, and he will only have his own (flawed from our POV) perspective.

1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses' face because of its brightness, fading as this was, 8 will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? 9 For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. 11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor. 12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. 14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. II Corinthians 3.


Unfortunately, he clings to the veil of Moses like a security blanket, walking in the way ("Halakhah") of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes, abandoning the Way of the Apostles, paying no heed to word of Holy Scripture "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." II Thessalonians 2:15..."Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you." I Corinthians 11:2...."Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." II Thessalonians 3:6.

II Peter 3:15 Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 06:48:56 PM
I wanted to post this in a new thread, its a different argument...evidently that's not allowed. That's unfortunate, I hate to see these two distinct arguments get confused.

LOL.  I thought so: quick thinking on the part of the mods. You are confused about them being seperate: the loom of Orthodoxy both weaves the seamless garment of the Church, and takes the stray threads of heresy and brades them into a firm cord by which the lost sheep maybe lassoed.


Quote
The "Apologia of St John Damascene Against Iconoclasts" is an argument by analogy

No, not in the excerpt you quote.  He does not argue from particular to particular because, as St. John explicitely demonstrates the one particular-the depictable likeness (what you call similtude) of God before the Incarnation-does not exist.

Quote
The similitude of God is like the Incarnate body of God:

As much as you like the tread the oranges to make the apple juice (hard cider?), I'm going to clean up your terminology.
Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the llikeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton
καὶ φυλάξεσθε σφόδρα τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ὅτι οὐκ εἴδετε ὁμοίωμα ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν χωρηβ ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός
μὴ ἀνομήσητε καὶ ποιήσητε ὑμῖν ἑαυτοῖς γλυπτὸν ὁμοίωμα πᾶσαν εἰκόνα ὁμοίωμα ἀρσενικοῦ ἢ θηλυκοῦ

ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 
Phillipians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance [σχῆμα:outward appearance, form, shape] as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The word you harp on in Deuteronomy is the same St. Paul uses in Phillipians: ὁμοίωμα that which is made like (something); likeness, form, appearance.  St. Paul addresses your usage in Romans 1:23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like [i.e. "in the likeness of the image of"] to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Since the Church has used the terms "image" and "likeness" since she wrote the Bible, we should stick with them.  The question them becomes since Christ came in the likeness of man, was He a man, or not?  Was He in the likeness of a man before he came, or not?  Scripture answers those questions:
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, form of God
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος form of servant

The Word was in the form of God, i.e. God; but he took the form of man. He became what He was not.  So "The similitude of God is" NOT "like the Incarnate body of God": as St. John points out.
Quote
These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry. Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in leading strings. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error, to be with God in the knowledge of the truth, to worship God alone, to enjoy the fulness of His knowledge. We have passed the stage of infancy, and reached the perfection of manhood. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be imaged and what may not. The Scripture says, ' You have not seen the likeness of Him.' What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible ? How picture the inconceivable ? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible ? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nkZGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9&dq=John+Damascus+form+of+a+servant&hl=en&ei=wsRZTMjRMYXInAfpnLiNCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
 He bore the likeness of His Father from before the ages, but bore the likeness of His mother only after He (once she consented) took it, considerably after Moses put the veil on his face coming down from Sinai. The likeness of His incarnate body is ours, not His by nature. He still, by nature, bears the likeness of His Father.

Quote
"And the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the voice of His words, but you saw not any form at all." (Deut. 4.12)

καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός φωνὴν ῥημάτων ὑμεῖς ἠκούσατε καὶ ὁμοίωμα οὐκ εἴδετε ἀλλ' ἢ φωνήν Of course they saw no form at all: God had no likeness to man.  In fact, having no likeness to man, God had no tongue and hence neither voice nor speech nor language. They heard only a verbal image created by God analogous to the images shown Moses on the mountain, created out of matter by the command of God .  As our Father St. John quotes our Father St. Leontios of Neapolis against the rabbis "In worshipping the book of the law, you are not worshipping parchment or colour, but God's words contained in it. So do I worship the image of Christ, neither wood nor colouring for themselves." St. John asks:

Quote
Answer me this question. Is there only one God? You answer, "Yes, there is only one Law-giver." Why, then, does He command contrary things? The cherubim are not outside of creation; why, then, does He allow cherubim carved by the hand of man to overshadow the mercy-scat? Is it not evident that as it is impossible to make an image of God, who is uncircumscribed and impassible, or of one like to God, creation should not be worshipped as God. He allows the image of the cherubim who are circumscribed, and prostrate in adoration before the divine throne, to be made, and thus prostrate to overshadow the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark and staff and mercy-seat were not made? Are they not produced by the hand of man? Are they not due to what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Was it not a type and a figure? Hence the holy Apostle's words concerning the observances of the law, "Who serve unto the example and shadow, of heavenly things." As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: "See" (He says), "that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the Mount." (Heb. 8.5; Ex. 25.40) But the law was not an image. It shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, "the law contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things." (Heb. 10.1) For if the law should forbid images, and yet be itself a forerunner of images, what should we say? If the tabernacle was a figure, and the type of a type, why does the law not prohibit image-making? But this is not in the least the case. There is a time for everything. (Eccl. 3.1)

And in the fullness of time God the Word took flesh and dwelt among, taking the likeness of us men so that we beheld the likeness of His Father. We celebrate that this month
(http://www.stpeterorthodoxchurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Transfig.jpg)
That's Moses, btw, on the right bearing witness to seeing on Tabor He Whom he could not see on Sinai (Exodus 33:20). But back to your false witness against St. John.

Quote
And shortly afterwards: "Keep your souls carefully. You saw not any similitude in the day that the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived you might make you a graven similitude, or image of male and female......
The Scripture says, "You have not seen the likeness of Him." (Ex. 33.20) What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible? How picture the inconceivable? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.-Apologia of St John Damascene Against Iconoclasts [/color]"You have not seen the likeness of Him" paraphrases Deut 4:12, not Ex 33:20.
Exodus 33:20 "But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth....He shewed unto them His hands and His side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD....and then saith He....behold...and be not faithless, but believing. (20:20,27)
(http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/images/thomas.jpg)
"My LORD and My God."

Quote
" When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form."

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it,
That's not St. John's implied premise, it is God's explicit statement.
Quote
9Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons; 10Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. 11And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. 12And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. 13And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. 14And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

15Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 19And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
Quote
therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth....(Luke 24:39) Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have....He shewed unto them His hands and His side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you...and then saith He....behold...and be not faithless, but believing.
My LORD and God.

Quote
If this is not correct, John's argument fails.
your putting words in his mouth is incorrect, and his argument succeeds:God prohibits imaging the likeness of God because we cannot see it, therefore God commands portraying the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

God could have appeared to Moses on Sinai in the manner He appeared to Abraham at Mamre, to Isaiah  on the Throne and to Ezekiel at Chebar. But
Quote
5 the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle...6 And He said, If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make Myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude [δόξαν] of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?
Since God spoke not to Moses in a vision, but revealed Himself in His true appearance, i.e. formless, there was no likeness to see, no image to portray. Moses saw His glory not on Sinai, but on Tabor, as shown above. As St. John points out:
Quote
Our Lord called His disciples blessed, saying, "Many kings and prophets have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear and have not heard it. Blessed are your eyes which see and your ears which hear." (Mt. 13.16-17) The apostles saw Christ with their bodily eyes, and His sufferings and wonders, and they listened to His words. We, too, desire to see, and to hear, and to be blessed. They saw Him face to face, as He was present in the body. Now, since he is not present in the body to us, we hear His words from books and are sanctified in spirit by the hearing, and are blessed, and we adore, honouring the books which tell us of His words. So, through the representation of images we look upon His bodily form, and upon His miracles and His sufferings, and are sanctified and satiated, gladdened and blessed. Reverently we worship His bodily form, and contemplating it, we form some notion of His divine glory. For, as we are composed of [90] soul and body, and our soul does not stand alone, but is, as it were, shrouded by a veil, it is impossible for us to arrive at intellectual conceptions without corporeal things. just as we listen with our bodily ears to physical words and understand spiritual things, so, through corporeal vision, we come to the spiritual. On this account Christ took a body and a soul, as man has both one and the other. And baptism likewise is double, of water and the spirit. So is communion and prayer and psalmody; everything has a double signification, a corporeal and a spiritual.

Quote
So the question is, "Did God say the Israelites could image His similitude had they seen it?" Was the fact its unlike anything in the experience of man the reason we cannot image it?

is irrealis moadlity.
Quote
Irrealis modality is a modality that connotes that the proposition with which it is associated is nonactual or nonfactual
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsIrrealisModality.htm

God did not say the Israelites could make an image of His likeness had they seen it, because they couldn not see Him. Your propositon is analgous to "If I were God...."  They could not image it because they could not experience it: they never got to like/unlike.

Quote
"So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image the likeness of male or female. 17. the likeness of any cattle on the earth, or the likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven. 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, or in the likeness of any fish in the waters beneath the earth."-Deu 4:15-18 Orthodox Bible.

No because this context is Moses' exegesis of the second commandment, which adds infinite heaven, where every possible image would exist, to the list of areas containing forbidden likenesses of His similitude:

And?  Man do not see Cherubim either, but God commanded Moses to create images of them according to what He revealed to him on the Mount.  As St. John points out:
Quote
We know that it is impossible to look upon God, or a spirit, or a demon, as they are. They are seen in a certain form, divine providence clothing in type and figure what is without substance or material being, for our instruction, and more intimate knowledge, lest we should be in too great ignorance of God, and of the spirit world. For God is a pure Spirit by His nature. The angel, and a soul, and a demon, compared to God, who alone is incomparable, are bodies; but compared to material bodies, they are bodiless. God therefore, not wishing that we should be in ignorance of spirits, clothed them in type and figure, and in images akin to our nature, material forms visible to the mind in mental vision. These we put into form and shape, for how were the cherubim represented and described in image? But Scripture offers forms and images even of God.

Quote
"You shall not make yourself an image, neither any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth."-Deu 5:8 OB

God had revealed Himself in fire at Horeb, condescending to a Personal relationship with HIs people. It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as some dungy image as they communed with His Spirit.

Agreed.  Therefore St. John tells us
Quote
First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. "For no man has seen God." (Jn. 1.18) Again, "Not that any one has seen the Father." (Jn. 6.46) The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father: "Who is the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1.15) and to the Hebrews, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1.3) In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, "Show us the Father and it is enough for us,"  our Lord replied, "Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip? He who sees Me, sees the Father." (Jn. 14.8-9) For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. (I Cor. 12.3) Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature,* language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.
Therefore, we see Him as He is, rather than visualize Him after our imagination.

Quote
"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 OB

When the transcendent God becomes a detestable image in the psyche of man, any personal relationship with God is defiled, driving God away:

When the transcendent God beame the image and likeness of man, He made a personal realtionship with God possible. It is because the veil of Moses still is over your heart, you cannot see the Lawgiver Who came to His own and His own did not receive Him.

Quote
"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OP
56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8.
Quote
21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)
St. John the Theologian begins
Quote
1:1 That [rather "He"] which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full
Since you reject his words and his successor, you reject Him Who sent him.


You forgot to prove John's premise:

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.


God does NOT want veneration via an icon, and as Jesus is God, He doesn't want it either.

That is very clear in Deut 4:12ff

John of Damascus NEVER proved God wanted icons of His similitude, if only the Israelites had seen it.

THAT is what you must prove, otherwise John of Damascus' entire argument, FAIL

Ps: His argument is an analogy.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Thankful on August 04, 2010, 07:33:55 PM
You forgot to prove John's premise:



On a practical note, would it be possible to quote ONLY the parts you want to quote from the previous poster, rather than the entire thing? Scrolling through the same, quoted posts over and over gets a little tiring.   For example, I hit "Quote" on your last post, but deleted everything but what shows above.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 04, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
You forgot to prove John's premise:



On a practical note, would it be possible to quote ONLY the parts you want to quote from the previous poster, rather than the entire thing? Scrolling through the same, quoted posts over and over gets a little tiring.   For example, I hit "Quote" on your last post, but deleted everything but what shows above.
Yeah, nested quotes are a bear, aren't they? ;)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 08:26:42 PM
Btw, since St. John deals with it, will you worship Him?
(http://vultus.stblogs.org/Inexhaustible%20Chalice%205.JPG)
(http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/p/pa/patene-byzantine.jpg)

Not if he believes that so many of Jesus' followers left Him in John 6 over a symbolic dispute.
John 6:66 (interesting number). The Biblical Protestants.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 04, 2010, 08:26:54 PM
You forgot to prove John's premise:

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

Methinks you didn't read the post (or the other replies to you in the two threads).  Too bad.

God does NOT want veneration via an icon, and as Jesus is God, He doesn't want it either.

If I were you, I would have reacted to the above by saying, "That's a claim, not an argument."  Thankfully, I'm not you.

THAT is what you must prove, otherwise John D's entire argument, FAIL

Ditto my previous comment.

Ps: His argument is an analogy.

How do you figure?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 04, 2010, 10:04:10 PM
You forgot to prove John's premise:

John of Damascus implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

Methinks you didn't read the post (or the other replies to you in the two threads).  Too bad.

God does NOT want veneration via an icon, and as Jesus is God, He doesn't want it either.

If I were you, I would have reacted to the above by saying, "That's a claim, not an argument."  Thankfully, I'm not you.

THAT is what you must prove, otherwise John D's entire argument, FAIL

Ditto my previous comment.

Ps: His argument is an analogy.

How do you figure?

John of Damascus' argument refers to their never having seen God's similitude, and contrasts that with how we have seen the incarnate body of God = analogy.


Of course it was a claim, I already made my argument for it, and I repeated the proof for the claim, Deut 4:12ff

It is impossible to read the context and conclude

"God really wants the Israelites to make an image of His similitude, if ONLY they had seen it!    Darn!




The text could NOT speak against every kind of icon more strongly.

It begins with "you never saw my similitude", to paraphrase, "you better not misrepresent me."


12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
 13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

[Lest it be overlooked, the second commandment is quite emphatic and inclusive, every possible image is ruled out as a likeness for God:

 8 `You shall not make for yourself a carved image-- 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; (Deu 5:8 NKJ)]


 14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.
 15 "Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
 16 "lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female,
 17 "the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,
 18 "the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth.
 (Deu 4:12-18 NKJ)


After ruling out every possible image imaginable, Moses repeats:


 23 "Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of anything which the LORD your God has forbidden you.
 24 "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
 (Deu 4:22-24 NKJ)

It is impossible to conclude God wants an image made of His similitude.

God does not change, Jesus is God, therefore He does not want an image of His similitude either.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 04, 2010, 11:41:40 PM
You forgot to prove John's premise:
No, St. John proved his premise.  I just posted it, e.g.:
Quote
These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry. Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in leading strings. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error, to be with God in the knowledge of the truth, to worship God alone, to enjoy the fulness of His knowledge. We have passed the stage of infancy, and reached the perfection of manhood. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be imaged and what may not. The Scripture says, ' You have not seen the likeness of Him.' What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible ? How picture the inconceivable ? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible ? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.

If you did more reading, and less of this
I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.
(http://adnauseous.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/monkey-covering-eyes.jpg)
you'd see that.

John's implied premise:
Why don't you just quote St. John (after you have read him, of course), instead of busying yourself with making up scripts to put in his mouth?  He doesn't mince words, so finding out what he says is not a difficulty. he's quite explicit.
God prohibits imaging the similitude
The word you harp on in Deuteronomy is the same St. Paul uses in Phillipians: ὁμοίωμα that which is made like (something); likeness, form, appearance.  St. Paul addresses your usage in Romans 1:23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like [i.e. "in the likeness of the image of"] to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Since the Church has used the terms "image" and "likeness" since she wrote the Bible, we should stick with them.  The question them becomes since Christ came in the likeness of man, was He a man, or not?  Was He in the likeness of a man before he came, or not?  Scripture answers those questions:
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, form of God
ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος form of servant

The Word was in the form of God, i.e. God; but he took the form of man. He became what He was not.  So "The similitude of God is" NOT "like the Incarnate body of God": as St. John points out.
quoted above
Quote
He bore the likeness of His Father from before the ages, but bore the likeness of His mother only after He (once she consented) took it, considerably after Moses put the veil on his face coming down from Sinai. The likeness of His incarnate body is ours, not His by nature. He still, by nature, bears the likeness of His Father.
of God because we have not seen it

Quote
I John 1:1 That [rather "He"] which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full
Since you reject his words and his successor, you reject Him Who sent him.

therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

We have.  The veil of Moses seems to have blocked your vision.

God does NOT want veneration via an icon,

Icons receive veneration. God receives worship. You would know that if you read St. John, who stood fast, and held the Traditions which he had been taught, whether by word or scripture, remembering the Apostles in all things, and kept their Traditions as  they were delivered to him.  The Fathers of the Seventh Council, commanded us their brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that fwe ollow St. John's example, and to withdraw ourselves from every brother that walks disorderly, and not after the Tradition which he received of the bishops, received of the Fathers, received of the Apostles, received of Christ: all which He received of His Father.  Despising the Fathers, the iconoclasts despise the Apostles who sent them and He Who sent them, and His Father Who sent Him.  He who spoke on Sinai and Moses beheld on Tabor.

and as Jesus is God, He doesn't want it either.

Since you reject those whom Christ sent, you reject Him Who sent them.  You cite no rabbis, so you have no authority either according to those who also saw Christ but rejected Him.  That leaves the Joseph Smith Jr. option: What's your accused Gospel? 'cuz it's sure different from the one the Apostles gave us.

The archaeologists have found Valentinius'misnamed "Gospel of Truth."  He was the one who taught similiarly to you, that Christ brought His body from eternity and passed through Mary like water through a pipe.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/got.html
It will do you better stead than our four Gospels. But of course, we have no use for it.

As receive "the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true," (John 21:24) we look and bow down in worship and fall down before Christ exclaiming "My LORD and My God."

That is very clear in Deut 4:12ff

Nothing is clear when you are looking through the veil of Moses.  Only Christ, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, expounded unto them whom He sent in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself, and be known by us in the breaking of the bread
Btw, since St. John deals with it, will you worship Him?
(http://vultus.stblogs.org/Inexhaustible%20Chalice%205.JPG)
(http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/p/pa/patene-byzantine.jpg)
does He open up the scriptures to us.

John of Damascus NEVER proved God wanted icons of His similitude, if only the Israelites had seen it.

Since you haven't read St. John, how would you know?

The Apostles saw Christ, received Him and delievered the Traditions (e.g. our Gospels) in which we stand fast with St. John and hold as he delievered them to us.
The Pharisees, Sadduccees and scribes saw Christ but they knew Him not, covering their sight with the veil of Moses.

We have seen His likeness.  That you wish to be the son of the bondswoman doesn't change that.

THAT is what you must prove,

LOL. We stand fast to the Traditions of the Apostles as they delivered them. As such, we have nothing to prove, just hold fast.  You don't even have Moses, and unwittingly depend on Valentinius. Prove your "Gospel of Truth."

otherwise John D's entire argument, FAIL

The Church has stood for nearly two millenia, St. John's teaching of her dogma over a millenium.  Perssonism began with you, and no doubt probably won't be around to celebrate its centennial.  St. John's writings have overcome his trial by fire, yours
(http://forums.mycotopia.net/attachments/fungi-growing-edible-medicinal-magic-mushrooms/144143d1255197389-do-pumpkin-stands-sell-straw-hay-staw-bale.jpg)
shouldn't play with matches.

Ps: His argument is an analogy.

Sorry, we aren't Hindus, so mantras do not work on us.
No, not in the excerpt you quote.  He does not argue from particular to particular because, as St. John explicitely demonstrates the one particular-the depictable likeness (what you call similtude) of God before the Incarnation-does not exist.
No hit Valentinius.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 12:04:26 AM
You forgot to prove John's premise:



On a practical note, would it be possible to quote ONLY the parts you want to quote from the previous poster, rather than the entire thing? Scrolling through the same, quoted posts over and over gets a little tiring.   For example, I hit "Quote" on your last post, but deleted everything but what shows above.

But if he does that, he loses the appearance that he has read the post, and his mantra would look quite naked.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 12:13:56 AM
POST WITH REASONED ARGUMENT QUOTED UNREAD
MANTRA
JUDAIZING MANTRA
MANTRA
ASSERTION
JUDAIZING ASSERTION
JUDAIZING  PROOFTEXTING
ASSERTION
MANTRA DISGUISED AS ASSERTION.

Quite a template you got there.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Rufus on August 05, 2010, 12:14:42 AM
Dear Alfred,

By your Aristotelian logic it would have been impossible for the Lord Jesus' disciples to see Him, because He was God.

Rufus
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 05, 2010, 12:17:40 AM
Excellent, but I anticipated some would think that, and refuted your third option as a possibility:

" When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form."-Ibid, I

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

This is the implied premise.

Quote
If this is not correct, John's argument fails.

It's not really St John's argument. He didn't invent it or make it up. The fact that images of Christ have been found in catacombs dating back to the early centuries when the Church was under persecution should be good enough to prove that point.

Quote
So the question is, "Did God say the Israelites could image His similitude had they seen it?"

I don't think you'll find stated exactly the way you worded it, but the prohibition was based on what had not been revealed. They had never seen it. The prohibition was based on the fact that they never saw it. It had not been revealed to them. That is why they could not image it. Now that God has revealed himself to us as a man, He is represented as such.

Quote
Was the fact its unlike anything in the experience of man the reason we cannot image it?

Yes, but in the incarnation we have seen and experienced it.

[/quote]
"So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire.[/quote]

This is the reason for the prohibition.

Quote
16. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image the likeness of male

God had not yet revealed Himself as a man yet.

Quote
or female.

God did not reveal Himself as a woman.

Quote
17. the likeness of any cattle on the earth,

God had not revealed Himself as an animal. There were images of oxen (3King 7:13 OSB) and lions (3King 7:22) in the temple.

Quote
or the likeness of any winged bird that flies under heaven.

God had not revealed Himself as such to them. The Holy Spirit did appear at Christ's baptism in the form of a dove.

Quote
18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground,

God had not revealed Himself as such to them.

Quote
or in the likeness of any fish in the waters beneath the earth."-Deu 4:15-18 Orthodox Bible.

God had not revealed Himself as such to them.

Quote
No because this context is Moses' exegesis of the second commandment, which adds infinite heaven, where every possible image would exist, to the list of areas containing forbidden likenesses of His similitude:

"You shall not make yourself an image, neither any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth."-Deu 5:8 OB

God had not revealed Himself to them as anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Don't forget the cherubim on the Ark, in the tabernacle, and in the temple.

Quote
God had revealed Himself in fire at Horeb, condescending to a Personal relationship with HIs people.

God did not actually give them an image of Himself.

Quote
It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as some dungy image as they communed with His Spirit.

It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as something He had not revealed Himself as being.

Quote
"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 OB

These "carved images" were representative of other gods. God did not want them to worship any other gods.

Quote
When the transcendent God becomes a detestable image in the psyche of man, any personal relationship with God is defiled, driving God away:

The image is not the person of Christ, only representative of the person of Christ. I personally have an easier time focusing on Christ when I am looking at His icon.

Quote
"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OB

They were worshipping other gods.

Quote
21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)

Everywhere you see the word "idol", it has to do with representing another god.

John's implied premise: God prohibits imaging the similitude of God because we have not seen it, therefore God would permit imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.


God does NOT want veneration via an icon, and as Jesus is God, He doesn't want it either.

That is very clear in Deut 4:12ff

John of Damascus NEVER proved God wanted icons of His similitude, if only the Israelites had seen it.

THAT is what you must prove, otherwise John D's entire argument, FAIL

Ps: His argument is an analogy.

You might have saved everyone including yourself a good deal of time and trouble by just starting out with this.

All Deut 4:12 does is reinforce that the israelites saw no form.

I'm curious about what the analogy is.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 12:19:53 AM
Dear Alfred,

By your Aristotelian logic it would have been impossible for the Lord Jesus' disciples to see Him, because He was God.

Rufus

Shhhh! He hasn't gotten past Deuteronomy, so he doesn't know of the OT's prequel, the NT, and doesn't know how the story ends.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: SolEX01 on August 05, 2010, 12:21:27 AM
Dear Alfred,

By your Aristotelian logic it would have been impossible for the Lord Jesus' disciples to see Him, because He was God.

Rufus

Fact check:

The Mormons do not believe Jesus is God.  Joseph Smith was a good example of an One Man Ecumenical Council.

Carry on.   ;D
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 06:56:49 AM
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography....

While I reject the charge, because you are so nice I have redone it. Enjoy:


The "Apologia of St John Damascene Against Iconoclasts" is an argument by analogy: The similitude of God is like the Incarnate body of God:

"And the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You heard the voice of His words, but you saw not any form at all." (Deut. 4.12) And shortly afterwards: "Keep your souls carefully. You saw not any similitude in the day that the Lord God spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest perhaps being deceived you might make you a graven similitude, or image of male and female......
The Scripture says, "You have not seen the likeness of Him." (Ex. 33.20) What wisdom in the law-giver. How depict the invisible? How picture the inconceivable? How give expression to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible? How give a form to immensity? How paint immortality? How localise mystery? It is clear that when you contemplate God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, you will be able to clothe Him with the human form. When the Invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw a likeness of His form. When He who is a pure spirit, without form or limit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing as God, takes upon Himself the form of a servant in substance and in stature, and a body of flesh, then you may draw His likeness, and show it to anyone willing to contemplate it. Depict His ineffable condescension, His virginal birth, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Thabor, His all-powerful sufferings, His death and miracles, the proofs of His Godhead, the deeds which He worked in the flesh through divine power, His saving Cross, His Sepulchre, and resurrection, and ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and colour.-Apologia of St John Damascene Against iconoclasts, I Note, "You have not seen the likeness of Him" paraphrases Deut 4:12, not Ex 33:20.


A Summary of John Damascene's argument: [/i]

If only the Israelites had seen God's similitude, which is unlike anything in creation, God would have wanted it imaged. Therefore, as God has revealed His similitude in the likeness of Jesus' incarnate Body, God wants it imaged.

So, if God didn't want His similitude imaged, then He wouldn't want His incarnate body imaged because God does not change (Mal 3:6) and Jesus is God (Joh 1:1; 12:41 cp Isa 6:1ff).

The premises: [/i]

1)God forbade imaging His similitude because we have not seen it, therefore He ordains permits imaging the Incarnate body of God because we have seen it.

2)Deut 4:15; 5:8; Ex 20:4 forbade images of God in any existing form.

3)God wants to be imaged.

John Damascene's interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
(Deu 4:15-19 KJV)

Moreover, the warning "take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves" is followed by a categorical "(ye saw) no manner of similitude" ( כָּל־תְּמוּנָה, lit., "all; every; any" similitude), has the force of: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, do not image God."

Inasmuch as the divine holiness is the separateness of the Divine Being from all finiteness of the creature, it includes the impossibility of forming an image of the Divine Being. For the connection of the two ideas compare the passage Isa. 40:25.- Oehler, G. F., & Day, G. E. (2009). Theology of the Old Testament. (111). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

KJV Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
(Isa 40:25 KJV)

Also contradicting John Damascene is the fact Moses saw God's similitude yet didn't make an image of it: [/i]

TKJV Numbers 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (Num 12:8 KJV)

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
(Exo 33:20-23 KJV)

Although this is a "reflex" of the divine form, according to John Damascene's rational, Moses should have imaged it, God would have wanted it so.

Also proving John Damascene's interpretation is impossible--- none reading Deut 4:15ff; 5:8; Ex 20:4, without icon spectacles comes away believing God wants to be imaged.

23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
(Deu 4:23-24 KJV)

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible

Replacing the imageless transcendent God with a detestable image in the psyche of man is an abomination of desolation, so defiling God's presence is impossible:

"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OB

Hence the apostle warns:

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: recent convert on August 05, 2010, 07:39:45 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 08:40:46 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: recent convert on August 05, 2010, 09:06:48 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.


But where does it say that the cross can be depicted scripturally? Per my posts in this thread I have conceptually removed the icons of Christ the Pantocrator, the incarnation, & all icons of the saints according to what you preach even though in my apparent darkness I thought I was worshipping the Trinity but was closer to weeping for Tammuz. I presume that there is much to be concerned about what we see with our eyes when we worship even though we have no other concepts other than Trinity as we worship, we proceed to betray it by a graven image?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 05, 2010, 09:36:17 AM
It begins with "you never saw my similitude", to paraphrase, "you better not misrepresent me."

They had no form with which to represent God because none had been revealed to them. We do because God revealed himself as a man.

Quote
God does not change, Jesus is God, therefore He does not want an image of His similitude either.

The prohibition was based on the fact that God had not revealed a form to the Israelites. This changed when God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: antiderivative on August 05, 2010, 10:09:49 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



You are a form a Protestantism, so I'm going to assume you don't believe in Transubstantiation. Don't you instead believe that the Eucharist is symbolic? If that's the case, that makes your eucharist is an icon of Christ.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 11:07:56 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



You are a form a Protestantism, so I'm going to assume you don't believe in Transubstantiation. Don't you instead believe that the Eucharist is symbolic? If that's the case, that makes your eucharist is an icon of Christ.

We have a winner!

Our dear OP does not know how to debate, he has been shown, time and again how he is wrong in his ideology yet he still clings to his beliefs. No matter what we tell him, no matter how much proof we show him, he will no yield. He is not here with an open mind to learn, he is here with a closed heart to (try to) sow disruption among God's children. He has failed in his debate and in ultimate goal of proselytizing.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 11:14:09 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



So which are you condemning?  Any image of the Lord Jesus Christ (including such images in children's Bibles, books of Bible stories, Sunday school lesson books, little felt cut-outs used in childrens' church, etc), or the worship of such images? 

If the first, then Lord have mercy on everyone, for these things abound!  If the second, then I refer you to the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the second Nicene council), so that you may understand the Orthodox usage of icons.   
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Thankful on August 05, 2010, 11:40:22 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?


Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



So which are you condemning?  Any image of the Lord Jesus Christ (including such images in children's Bibles, books of Bible stories, Sunday school lesson books, little felt cut-outs used in childrens' church, etc), or the worship of such images

If the first, then Lord have mercy on everyone, for these things abound!  If the second, then I refer you to the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the second Nicene council), so that you may understand the Orthodox usage of icons.   


TheistGal said it concisely on another thread:

Idols are false gods.  Christ is the true God.  Therefore, an icon of Him is not an idol but simply a reminder that God became flesh and dwelt among us. 
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 12:51:28 PM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



You are a form a Protestantism, so I'm going to assume you don't believe in Transubstantiation. Don't you instead believe that the Eucharist is symbolic? If that's the case, that makes your eucharist is an icon of Christ.

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 12:58:42 PM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?


Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



So which are you condemning?  Any image of the Lord Jesus Christ (including such images in children's Bibles, books of Bible stories, Sunday school lesson books, little felt cut-outs used in childrens' church, etc), or the worship of such images

If the first, then Lord have mercy on everyone, for these things abound!  If the second, then I refer you to the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the second Nicene council), so that you may understand the Orthodox usage of icons.   


TheistGal said it concisely on another thread:

Idols are false gods.  Christ is the true God.  Therefore, an icon of Him is not an idol but simply a reminder that God became flesh and dwelt among us. 


Yes, but what I'm wondering is what Persson's own stance is, exactly.  If he is against any depiction whatsoever of our Lord, then Jack T Chick himself stands condemned.  If he is merely against worship of icons, then he is barking up the wrong tree entirely, as any reading of the Seventh Council will clearly state.



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 12:59:10 PM
Quote

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.



Likewise we do not worship icons, we venerate them. Your communion is an icon, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You do communion in remembrance of Christ, therefore it serves as a memory as Christ's blood and body, in essence it is a type of icon. Do you not revere communion? Do you not make sure that your heart is in the right place before communion lest ye be consumed by fire as were the sons of Aaron? If you do these things then you do indeed venerate the communion and it is indeed an icon.

Again, veneration is not the same as worship, which belongs only to God. Our icons (pictures) of Christ likewise help us to remember Christ's blood and body (being the person) as your oyster crackers and welch's does for you.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 01:06:26 PM
It begins with "you never saw my similitude", to paraphrase, "you better not misrepresent me."

They had no form with which to represent God because none had been revealed to them. We do because God revealed himself as a man.

Quote
God does not change, Jesus is God, therefore He does not want an image of His similitude either.

The prohibition was based on the fact that God had not revealed a form to the Israelites. This changed when God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

So you are saying:

If only the Israelites had seen God's similitude, which is unlike anything in creation, God would have wanted it imaged. Therefore, as God has revealed His similitude in the likeness of Jesus' incarnate Body, God wants it imaged.

So, if God didn't want His similitude imaged, then He wouldn't want His incarnate body imaged because God does not change (Mal 3:6) and Jesus is God (Joh 1:1; 12:41 cp Isa 6:1ff).

That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
(Deu 4:15-19 KJV)

Moreover, the warning "take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves" connected to the categorical "(ye saw) no manner of similitude" ( כָּל־תְּמוּנָה, lit., "all; every; any" similitude), has the force of: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, do not image God."

Inasmuch as the divine holiness is the separateness of the Divine Being from all finiteness of the creature, it includes the impossibility of forming an image of the Divine Being. For the connection of the two ideas compare the passage Isa. 40:25.- Oehler, G. F., & Day, G. E. (2009). Theology of the Old Testament. (111). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

KJV Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
(Isa 40:25 KJV)

Also contradicting you is the fact Moses saw God's similitude yet didn't make an image of it: [/i]

TKJV Numbers 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (Num 12:8 KJV)

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
(Exo 33:20-23 KJV)

Although this is a "reflex" of the divine form, according to John Damascene's rational, Moses should have imaged it, God would have wanted it so.

That your interpretation is impossible--- none reading Deut 4:15ff; 5:8; Ex 20:4, without icon spectacles comes away believing God wants to be imaged.

23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
(Deu 4:23-24 KJV)

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible

Replacing the imageless transcendent God with a detestable image in the psyche of man is an abomination of desolation, so defiling God's presence is impossible:

"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OB

Hence the apostle warns:

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 01:13:13 PM




That your interpretation is impossible--- none reading Deut 4:15ff; 5:8; Ex 20:4, without icon spectacles comes away believing God wants to be imaged.





[/quote]

Then why do you image God in your communion? Does your communion not symbolize Christ's blood and body? If it does then it is an image of Christ, and it is an icon as icons are symbols used to remember.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Thankful on August 05, 2010, 01:27:49 PM

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)


You keep saying this, but the fact of the matter is, the icon is NOT an idol in the Orthodox church.  An idol is a false god -- we are not trusting in the icon to save us and we are not worshiping the icon.  So keep railing against the icons if you must, but calling them idols in conclusion is incorrect. 
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 01:35:59 PM
SUBSTANTIATED CHARGE
IMPLAUSIBLE DENIAL
MANTRA
MANTRA
SILLY SYLLOGISM DISGUISED AS STRAW MAN ASSERTION

So, if God didn't want His similitude imaged, then He wouldn't want His incarnate body imaged because God does not change (Mal 3:6)
then being in the form of God He would have grasped divinity and not taken the likeness (mistranslated by some  ::) as "similtude") of man, emptying Himself to take the human form which is imaged.  Of course He does not change, which is why at the sight of Him, being found in fashion as a man, the Apsotles He sent and those who receive them fall down in worship and exclaim "My LORD and My God," to the glory of God the Father, for to see Him is to see the Father. Anyone who refuses, rejecting them He sent, reject Him and He Who sent Him, Who does not change.  (Phil. 2:6-8, 10-11; John 13:20-1; 20:20-23, 27-28; Luke 10:16)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 01:37:46 PM
and Jesus is God (Joh 1:1; 12:41 cp Isa 6:1ff).[/color][/b]

and Jesus is the icon of the invisible God, the Firstborn of creation in Whom the fullness of Godhood was pleased to dwell (Col. 1:15, 19), and, unlike Moses on Sinai (Ex. 33.20), we have beheld His face (John 1:14), as Moses did on Tabor.

MANTRA
2)Deut 4:15; 5:8; Ex 20:4 forbade images of God in any existing form.

God did not exist in the form of man, until the fullness of time when He took flesh and dwellt among us, and we beheld His glory, which Moses could not see on Sinai, but saw on Tabor.

3) God wants to be imaged.
Luke 10: 1 "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come....

16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me....

21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. 22All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

23And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: 24For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them....

13:31The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. 32And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. 33Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. 34O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! 35Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

Yes, God wants to be imaged.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 01:38:43 PM
John Damascene's interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

So Detu. 4:15ff forbade the Incarnation, which is why Mary was troubled at Gabriel's saying, asking "How shall this be?" as Deuteronomy forbids Him existing in the Heavens to be conceived by the handmaiden.  

And when the angel answered and said unto her "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.  For with God nothing shall be impossible," he lied, as Deut. 4:15ff forbade the image and likeness of the Father to come in the likeness of man, the image and likeness of God.  

So when Mary said, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word," she broke the word of God "And the angel departed from her."  

Yes, I am sure that is the image of the coming of the Son of Man that the Woman, the New Eve, gave to the beloved disciple, as they looked on the Son of Man who came down from Heaven (oops! He couldn't have: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that, as "no man hath ascended into Heaven" so I guess we have to drop Acts 1:9-10, as Deut. 4:15ff forbade that) lifted up like the image of the serpent that God commanded Moses to make (ooops! He couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that) so it would come to pass that every one whehn he looketh upon Him (ooops! they couldn't have: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that) shall live.  

So the deloved disciple, the Theologian, warns us that "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes (ooops! he couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that), which we have looked upon (ooops! he couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that), and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested (ooops! He couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that), and we have seen it (ooops! they couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that), and bear witness (oops! evidently false witness, and the Truth was not in him) , and shew unto you ((ooops! he couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that)) that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us (ooops! He couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that);) 3That which we have seen (ooops! He couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that) and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  (Luke 1:26-38; John 3:13-4: Numbers 21:8-9; I John 1:1-4).  

Don't know what then to make of his warning  (I John 2)

"18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 20But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.  25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.  26These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear (ooops! He can't do that: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that), we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. 3:1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear (ooops! He can't do that: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that), we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (ooops! We can't: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that)...4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (ooops! He couldn'thave: Deut. 4:15ff forbade that) is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

 (Luke 1:26-38; John 3:13-4: Numbers 21:8-9; I John 1:1-4).

Your interpretation of St. Luke is impossible.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 01:41:09 PM
CITATION OF THE LAW MUFFLED THROUGH THE VEIL OF MOSES.
EISOGESIS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE PHARISEES, SADDUCCEES AND SCRIBES

Inasmuch as the divine holiness is the separateness of the Divine Being from all finiteness of the creature, it includes the impossibility of forming an image of the Divine Being. For the connection of the two ideas compare the passage Isa. 40:25.- Oehler, G. F., & Day, G. E. (2009). Theology of the Old Testament. (111). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Compare St. John the Theologian "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory."

KJV Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
(Isa 40:25 KJV)

Not being among the Protestants who have went back, and walk with the Lord no more (John 6:66, speaking of antichrist), we, going nowhere from the words of Life that the Church has given us, we believe and are sure that He is that Christ, the Son of the living God and the Holy One of God, to whom we liken the likeness and find equal, as He did not find it robbery.

I know that that this is an hard saying and it doth offend you; and you cannot hear it.  You murmured at it, and cover your eyes with the veil of Moses so that you cannot see the Son of man ascend up where He was before, but the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him, And He said therefore that no man can come unto him, except it were given unto him of His Father. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father, It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught by God. And so we have been:"He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
(John 6:45-6, 66-70, 14:9; Philip 2:6).

Also contradicting John Damascene is the fact Moses saw God's similitude yet didn't make an image of it: [/i]

TKJV Numbers 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (Num 12:8 KJV)

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
(Exo 33:20-23 KJV)

Actually, here you are claiming that God in Deuteronomy (4:15ff "for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you") contradicts God in Numbers and Exodus. Of course you fail to notice that Numbers says "shall he behold," future, not past (into which the incident in Exodus had come to pass).  And in the future Moses did behold the likeness (the correct translation) and glory (the correct text of the Pentateuch of the Apostles, as opposed to your Torah of the Pharisees and scribes) on His face
And in the fullness of time God the Word took flesh and dwelt among, taking the likeness of us men so that we beheld the likeness of His Father. We celebrate that this month
(http://www.stpeterorthodoxchurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Transfig.jpg)
That's Moses, btw, on the right bearing witness to seeing on Tabor He Whom he could not see on Sinai (Exodus 33:20). But back to your false witness against St. John.

Although this is a "reflex" of the divine form, according to John Damascene's rational

Why don't you quote St. John, as he does deal with this issue?

, Moses should have imaged it, God would have wanted it so.

Then God would have brought it up in the first place.  He didn't. Moses did. God had other plans, fulfilled in the fullness of time. Moses was among those prophets that the Lord tells us "desired to see those things which [we] see, and have not seen them."

Also proving John Damascene's interpretation is impossible--- none reading Deut 4:15ff; 5:8; Ex 20:4, without icon spectacles
When we are baptized and made disciples as Christ commanded by those whom He sent, after they worshipped Him when they saw Him, and with whom He promised to be with all the days to the end of the age (Mt. 28:17-20), the scales fall from our eyes and the veil of Moses is taken away (Acts 9:17-18; II Corin. 3:14) and we receive our sight, or rather His sight.  

Those which the Holy Ghost hath made overseers and bishop, to feed and shepherd the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood (oooops!  Deut. 4:15ff forbade that), stiring in them the gift of God of a sound mind which is in them from the laying on of hands when they took their bishoprick and were numbered among the Apostles, and appointed to set in order that which is lacking (Acts 1:20, 26, 20:28; II Tim. 1:6-7; Tit. 1:5), they anoint our eyes with eyesalve, that we may see, and to have an unction from the Holy One, so we know all things, the anointing which we have received of Him abideth in us, and we need not that any man teach us: but as the same anointing teacheth us of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught us, we shall abide in Him (I John 20:20, 27; Rev. 3:8 ).  We were blind, but now we see, and see Him as He is.

"24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. 25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? 28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. 29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. 34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

35Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."

Those who walk in the way of the Pharisees, claiming to be Moses' disciples, not knowing whence Christ is or "I Am," have been warned.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 01:42:02 PM
Quote

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.



Likewise we do not worship icons, we venerate them. Your communion is an icon, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You do communion in remembrance of Christ, therefore it serves as a memory as Christ's blood and body, in essence it is a type of icon. Do you not revere communion? Do you not make sure that your heart is in the right place before communion lest ye be consumed by fire as were the sons of Aaron? If you do these things then you do indeed venerate the communion and it is indeed an icon.

Again, veneration is not the same as worship, which belongs only to God. Our icons (pictures) of Christ likewise help us to remember Christ's blood and body (being the person) as your oyster crackers and welch's does for you.

Its impossible the Eucharist host and wine be an icon:

 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
 (Mat 26:26-29 KJV)

There is no prototype, 1)Christ was still using His body and blood to pass out the Eucharist, which symbolized what yet didn't exist, the sacrificed body and blood of Christ.

2)By the testimony of Christ Himself, the wine remained wine after His consecration, He said it was "THIS fruit of the vine" in v. 29, not His blood.

Evasions of the issue are puzzling, nothing is gained while my argument remains towering over all, like the proverbial 200 lbs gorilla in the room.

Not that I mind, I consider it all joy.

Icons are bait and switch. A mystical experience mediated from far away versus communion with the indwelling LORD Jesus Christ:

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev 18:4 KJV)


20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
 (Rev 3:20-22 KJV)

To let Christ in, do PRECISELY what Paul commanded, repent and confess Christ is LORD publicly, before the eyes of angels and men:

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
 (Rom 10:9-11 KJV)

Then, while you are yet far off, God will hasten to you:

19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
 23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
 (Luk 15:19-24 KJV)

He will come to you, and sup with you, and you with Him.


He will give you your marching orders then, when He is with you.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 01:42:58 PM
comes away believing God wants to be imaged.[/i] [/b]
We can't even say that all those who wear the veil of Moses over their sight come away believing like you after you went back and walked with the Lord no more.
(http://t771unit2.pbworks.com/f/duraeuropos.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura_Europas_Synagogue#Wall-paintings

23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
(Deu 4:23-24 KJV)

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon :

So why does the invisible God the Father demand that at the sight of His icon Jesus, His Son and , from the time the Magi found Him in the house with His mother until St. John saw Him amidst the Four Living Ones and the Twenty Four Elders, those in Heaven and those of the Earth and those under the Earth should bow down in worship to Him, in whom the fullness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell, to the glory of God the Father?

MANTRA REPEATED WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING
MANTRA
MANTRA
MANTRA
It is impossible to read the context and conclude
[MANTRA:] 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)
It is impossible to read the context and conclude
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Mat. 7:1-2).
You quote the end of St. John, but he begins with his context
St. John the Theologian begins
Quote
1:1 That [rather "He"] which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full
Since you reject his words and his successor, you reject Him Who sent him.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 01:57:12 PM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.

And since icons are forbidden, as Jesus is the icon of the invisible God (or so He claimed, and His Apostles taught) and God doesn't change, He forbade the incarnation.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 02:00:53 PM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.


But where does it say that the cross can be depicted scripturally? Per my posts in this thread I have conceptually removed the icons of Christ the Pantocrator, the incarnation, & all icons of the saints according to what you preach even though in my apparent darkness I thought I was worshipping the Trinity but was closer to weeping for Tammuz. I presume that there is much to be concerned about what we see with our eyes when we worship even though we have no other concepts other than Trinity as we worship, we proceed to betray it by a graven image?
(http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/images/icon.h3.jpg)
You Can Live Forever on a Paradise Earth
The Visual Rhetoric of Jehovah's Witness Iconography
http://www.unc.edu/~elliott/icon.html
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 02:04:02 PM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



So which are you condemning?  Any image of the Lord Jesus Christ (including such images in children's Bibles, books of Bible stories, Sunday school lesson books, little felt cut-outs used in childrens' church, etc), or the worship of such images? 

If the first, then Lord have mercy on everyone, for these things abound!  If the second, then I refer you to the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the second Nicene council), so that you may understand the Orthodox usage of icons.   
At least the Muslims are consistent (or more so) iconoclasts.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 02:04:30 PM
Quote

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.



Likewise we do not worship icons, we venerate them. Your communion is an icon, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You do communion in remembrance of Christ, therefore it serves as a memory as Christ's blood and body, in essence it is a type of icon. Do you not revere communion? Do you not make sure that your heart is in the right place before communion lest ye be consumed by fire as were the sons of Aaron? If you do these things then you do indeed venerate the communion and it is indeed an icon.

Again, veneration is not the same as worship, which belongs only to God. Our icons (pictures) of Christ likewise help us to remember Christ's blood and body (being the person) as your oyster crackers and welch's does for you.

Its impossible the Eucharist host and wine be an icon:

 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
 (Mat 26:26-29 KJV)

There is no prototype, 1)Christ was still using His body and blood to pass out the Eucharist, which symbolized what yet didn't exist, the sacrificed body and blood of Christ.




but it was still a symbol, and it now symbolizes that which has passed (especially in most protestant sects where communion is only a symbol), it is a modern day icon in the protestant church, as are stained glass windows depicting Bible stories. For some reasons protestants deem these just picture because they do not worship them, but neither do Orthodox worship icons.

Call it what you will, but protestant communion (in which it is only a symbol) is an icon of protestant churches. Must you protestants protest everything? Can you never admit when you are wrong? I could, I guess that is why I am no longer protestant, and it is this same stubbornness you portray that drove me away in the first place.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 02:05:55 PM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



You are a form a Protestantism, so I'm going to assume you don't believe in Transubstantiation. Don't you instead believe that the Eucharist is symbolic? If that's the case, that makes your eucharist is an icon of Christ.

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.





If realized that the Host is Christ, would you worship Him? Refusing to do so indeed would be bad behavior.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 02:11:57 PM
Quote

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.



Likewise we do not worship icons, we venerate them. Your communion is an icon, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You do communion in remembrance of Christ, therefore it serves as a memory as Christ's blood and body, in essence it is a type of icon. Do you not revere communion? Do you not make sure that your heart is in the right place before communion lest ye be consumed by fire as were the sons of Aaron? If you do these things then you do indeed venerate the communion and it is indeed an icon.

Again, veneration is not the same as worship, which belongs only to God. Our icons (pictures) of Christ likewise help us to remember Christ's blood and body (being the person) as your oyster crackers and welch's does for you.

There is no prototype, 1)Christ was still using His body and blood to pass out the Eucharist, which symbolized what yet didn't exist, the sacrificed body and blood of Christ.

2)By the testimony of Christ Himself, the wine remained wine after His consecration, He said it was "THIS fruit of the vine" in v. 29, not His blood.


You are attacking an argument that nowhere in dcommini's post is made.  While I am sure dcommini does indeed believe the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood, he is not making that claim at this time.  

What he is doing is making a statement, that your "memorial" is an "icon" despite your evasions otherwise, by the fact that it is indeed (in your theology) a memorial.  Every Christian denomination I have knowledge of, before partaking, recites the words "This is my Body... this is my Blood".   Regardless of whether you believe in an actual change, Real Presence, Consubstantiation, or symbolic interpretation, these words are stated.  The mental imagery of a Body and the mental imagery of Blood are conveyed by the words.



Quote
Evasions of the issue are puzzling, nothing is gained while my argument remains towering over all.

Yes, your argument is as a tower reaching unto the heavens.  No wonder your speech is so confused.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 02:20:01 PM
Quote

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.



Likewise we do not worship icons, we venerate them. Your communion is an icon, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You do communion in remembrance of Christ, therefore it serves as a memory as Christ's blood and body, in essence it is a type of icon. Do you not revere communion? Do you not make sure that your heart is in the right place before communion lest ye be consumed by fire as were the sons of Aaron? If you do these things then you do indeed venerate the communion and it is indeed an icon.

Again, veneration is not the same as worship, which belongs only to God. Our icons (pictures) of Christ likewise help us to remember Christ's blood and body (being the person) as your oyster crackers and welch's does for you.

Its impossible the Eucharist host and wine be an icon:

 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
 (Mat 26:26-29 KJV)

There is no prototype, 1)Christ was still using His body and blood to pass out the Eucharist, which symbolized what yet didn't exist, the sacrificed body and blood of Christ.




but it was still a symbol, and it now symbolizes that which has passed (especially in most protestant sects where communion is only a symbol), it is a modern day icon in the protestant church, as are stained glass windows depicting Bible stories. For some reasons protestants deem these just picture because they do not worship them, but neither do Orthodox worship icons.

Call it what you will, but protestant communion (in which it is only a symbol) is an icon of protestant churches. Must you protestants protest everything? Can you never admit when you are wrong? I could, I guess that is why I am no longer protestant, and it is this same stubbornness you portray that drove me away in the first place.


But still not an icon, which has a prototype receiving the veneration.

Jesus was standing there with the disciples, they  were NOT venerating Jesus, they were communing with Jesus there with them while they ate symbols of His body and blood sacrifice to be given at Calvary.

Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.

So the Eucharist is NOT an icon. Remembering Christ is not directing veneration to Him via icon, its an act of memory.

The omnipresent Christ is with those who celebrate the Eucharist PRECISELY as He commanded it.

Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!

 13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jer 2:13 KJV)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 02:43:46 PM
Quote

Your argument is unsound, 1)bad behavior does not justify bad behavior; 2)I don't worship the host, symbolic or not. I eat it. So it is not an icon.



Likewise we do not worship icons, we venerate them. Your communion is an icon, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You do communion in remembrance of Christ, therefore it serves as a memory as Christ's blood and body, in essence it is a type of icon. Do you not revere communion? Do you not make sure that your heart is in the right place before communion lest ye be consumed by fire as were the sons of Aaron? If you do these things then you do indeed venerate the communion and it is indeed an icon.

Again, veneration is not the same as worship, which belongs only to God. Our icons (pictures) of Christ likewise help us to remember Christ's blood and body (being the person) as your oyster crackers and welch's does for you.

Its impossible the Eucharist host and wine be an icon:

 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
 (Mat 26:26-29 KJV)

There is no prototype, 1)Christ was still using His body and blood to pass out the Eucharist, which symbolized what yet didn't exist, the sacrificed body and blood of Christ.




but it was still a symbol, and it now symbolizes that which has passed (especially in most protestant sects where communion is only a symbol), it is a modern day icon in the protestant church, as are stained glass windows depicting Bible stories. For some reasons protestants deem these just picture because they do not worship them, but neither do Orthodox worship icons.

Call it what you will, but protestant communion (in which it is only a symbol) is an icon of protestant churches. Must you protestants protest everything? Can you never admit when you are wrong? I could, I guess that is why I am no longer protestant, and it is this same stubbornness you portray that drove me away in the first place.


But still not an icon, which has a prototype receiving the veneration.

Jesus was standing there with the disciples, they  were NOT venerating Jesus, they were communing with Jesus there with them while they ate symbols of His body and blood sacrifice to be given at Calvary.

Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.

So the Eucharist is NOT an icon. Remembering Christ is not directing veneration to Him via icon, its an act of memory.

The omnipresent Christ is with those who celebrate the Eucharist PRECISELY as He commanded it.

Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!

 13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jer 2:13 KJV)


1) there was a prototype: Jesus. He was and is the prototype for the Eucharist.

2)How do you know that the disciples were not venerating Jesus as he was there with Him? Where you there? If you were in the presence of God who is also God's Son would you not stand in awe, reverence, and veneration of Him? If your answer is no then you are by all means disrespectful.

3)You obviously do not understand the purpose of an icon is not to misdirect attention from Christ, but to remind that Christ is worthy of our attention. Remembering Christ can be done through the veneration of icons, and it can also be done through prayer, not just communion. Through prayers, icons, or communions are all acceptable ways to remember Christ.

4) The Orthodox do celebrate the Eucharist precisely as Christ commanded us to, and we have since the first communion.

5) How do iconophiles look for a Jesus far away to worship? Because we chose to venerate icons that constantly remind us of who Jesus is, and what He did for us? No, my friend, the Jesus I worship, the Jesus who saved is me is right here next to me, He is in my heart and He is my closest friend. I look upon his picture daily, as you would of friends and relatives. I ponder His great mystery of being fully God and fully man, and I am amazed that the being so powerful as to create and destroy at will would be interested in my - the chief of sinners - salvation. That is the Jesus I worship.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 02:47:58 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: antiderivative on August 05, 2010, 02:49:29 PM

But still not an icon, which has a prototype receiving the veneration.

But your original argument was against imaging Christ. Veneration is a different matter, you were arguing that simply making an image of Christ is idolatry. If that is the case, then your communion is idolatry, because you say it symbolizes Christ's body and blood. It doesn't matter whether you venerate or not, that still makes it an icon of God. Something doesn't have to receive veneration to be an icon, it simply has to symbolize a prototype.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 03:00:21 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.

Aren't you equivocating? Orthodox icons must be venerated, all worship through them goes to the prototype and they mediate grace and many have mystical experience via icons.

Your icons don't appear to be Orthodox, are you sure?


In other words, if that is all icons are to the Orthodox, I wouldn't be arguing against them.


To defend your belief you must admit its your belief. If you redefine it, you have no possible victory, any "win" only proved what you don't believe, is true.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 03:07:30 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.

Aren't you equivocating? Orthodox icons must be venerated, all worship through them goes to the prototype and they mediate grace and many have mystical experience via icons.

Your icons don't appear to be Orthodox, are you sure?



Again, you are using worship and veneration to mean the same thing. They do not and once you understand this it will help you to see why and how icons are used. We do not worship icons, therefore no, worship does not go through them to the prototype.

Worship is for God alone.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 03:19:25 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.

Aren't you equivocating? Orthodox icons must be venerated, all worship through them goes to the prototype and they mediate grace and many have mystical experience via icons.

Your icons don't appear to be Orthodox, are you sure?



Again, you are using worship and veneration to mean the same thing. They do not and once you understand this it will help you to see why and how icons are used. We do not worship icons, therefore no, worship does not go through them to the prototype.

Worship is for God alone.



No, I did not. You are evading my argument:

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon. It is irrelevant if you allege some praise is dulia, and the other latria. God says He woun't allow carved images any praise :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 03:29:10 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.

Aren't you equivocating? Orthodox icons must be venerated, all worship through them goes to the prototype and they mediate grace and many have mystical experience via icons.

Your icons don't appear to be Orthodox, are you sure?



Again, you are using worship and veneration to mean the same thing. They do not and once you understand this it will help you to see why and how icons are used. We do not worship icons, therefore no, worship does not go through them to the prototype.

Worship is for God alone.



No, I did not. You are evading my argument:

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon. It is irrelevant if you allege some praise is dulia, and the other latria. God says He woun't allow carved images any praise :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible




You did and I am not evading any argument. We do not give praise or glory to icons. Most icons I have seen in the Orthodox church are paintings, not carvings so we can throw that argument out.

We venerate the icons of saints because of the lives they lived, they were godly men and women. We venerate so we may imitate their lives, and try to be as godly as they were. Icons serve only as reminders, they are not praised, they are not worshipped, they are not glorified. I tire of telling you this over and over again. I will not mention this again and if you continue to bring it up your arguments will be invalid since you are only repeating yourself but using different words to do so.

You have been defeated in your debate. That you continue to try is quite embarrassing to yourself.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 03:31:59 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.

Aren't you equivocating? Orthodox icons must be venerated, all worship through them goes to the prototype and they mediate grace and many have mystical experience via icons.

Your icons don't appear to be Orthodox, are you sure?



Again, you are using worship and veneration to mean the same thing. They do not and once you understand this it will help you to see why and how icons are used. We do not worship icons, therefore no, worship does not go through them to the prototype.

Worship is for God alone.



No, I did not. You are evading my argument:

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon. It is irrelevant if you allege some praise is dulia, and the other latria. God says He woun't allow carved images any praise :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible




If you will forgive me, but you have praised not only yourself, but the strength of your arguments many times throughout the course of both this thread and your thread on proselyting.  Perhaps before you attack our beloved icons, you should look to the golden statue you have built within.

You also have a love for quoting verses outside of not only their textual context, but historical context.  Quoting a condemnation of a graven image that is indeed stealing from the glory of God, as an image of Molech, Chemosh, or Ashtoreth does indeed do; speaks not at all to the images of Christ and His saints that we revere.

Finally, about the word "icon".  You must understand that a key idea in the Orthodox thought is that we are all called to be icons of Christ.  All men were created as "icons" of God, and through Christ we are called to be icons not only in appearance but in action.  The icons in our churches stand there as a reminder of this, and because of this we love them.  Just as we love the Blessed Virgin for birthing God, we love our saints for bearing God in their hearts, and we each seek to do the same in as much as we are given the ability to do so.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 05, 2010, 03:45:53 PM
God ordered the making of several graven images of things above and below heaven.
References to icons ordered by God in red.

Exodus 25

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
(...)
And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

According to all that I shew thee,
(...)
And thou shalt make two cherubims  {of} gold, {of} beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: {even} of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. {of...: or, of the matter of the mercy seat}

And the cherubims shall stretch forth {their} wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces {shall look} one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

(...)

(In the same book and chapter, God communes with Men from among graven images)

And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which {are} upon the ark of the testimony, of all {things} which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

1 Kings 6
And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof {was} threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty {cubits}, and the height thereof thirty cubits.
(...)
And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying,

{Concerning} this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father:

And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.

(...)

And the cedar of the house within {was} carved with knops and open flowers: all {was} cedar; there was no stone seen. {knops: or, gourds} {open: Heb. openings of}

(...)

And within the oracle he made two cherubims {of} olive tree,  {each} ten cubits high. {olive: or, oily: Heb. trees of oil}

And five cubits {was} the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other {were} ten cubits.

And the other cherub {was} ten cubits: both the cherubims {were} of one measure and one size.

The height of the one cherub {was} ten cubits, and so {was it} of the other cherub.

And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the {one} wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. {they...: or, the cherubims stretched forth their wings}

And he overlaid the cherubims with gold.

And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. {open flowers: Heb. openings of flowers}

(...)

The two doors also {were of} olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid {them} with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees. {two...: or, leaves of the doors} {open flowers: Heb. openings of flowers}

(...)

And the two doors {were of} fir tree: the two leaves of the one door {were} folding, and the two leaves of the other door {were} folding.

And he carved {thereon} cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered {them} with gold fitted upon the carved work.

1 Kings 7

And under the brim of it round about there were knops which did compass it, for ten cubits, compassing the sea round about: the knops were in two rows, cast when it was cast.

It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set upon them above, and all their hinder parts were inward.

And the work of the bases was on this manner: they had panels; and there were panels between the ledges;

and on the panels that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubim; and upon the ledges there was a pedestal above; and beneath the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work.




2 Chronicles 3

Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for the building of the house of God.

And the greater house he ceiled with fir-wood, which he overlaid with fine gold, and wrought thereon palm-trees and chains.

He overlaid also the house, the beams, the thresholds, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubim on the walls.

And in the most holy house he made two cherubim of image work; and they overlaid them with gold.

And he made the veil of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubim thereon.

And he made chains in the oracle, and put [them] on the tops of the pillars; and he made a hundred pomegranates, and put them on the chains.

---------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 04:33:54 PM
God ordered the making of several graven images of things above and below heaven.
References to icons ordered by God in red.

Exodus 25

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
(...)
And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

According to all that I shew thee,
(...)
And thou shalt make two cherubims  {of} gold, {of} beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: {even} of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. {of...: or, of the matter of the mercy seat}

And the cherubims shall stretch forth {their} wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces {shall look} one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

(...)

(In the same book and chapter, God communes with Men from among graven images)

And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which {are} upon the ark of the testimony, of all {things} which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

1 Kings 6
And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof {was} threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty {cubits}, and the height thereof thirty cubits.
(...)
And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying,

{Concerning} this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father:

And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.

(...)

And the cedar of the house within {was} carved with knops and open flowers: all {was} cedar; there was no stone seen. {knops: or, gourds} {open: Heb. openings of}

(...)

And within the oracle he made two cherubims {of} olive tree,  {each} ten cubits high. {olive: or, oily: Heb. trees of oil}

And five cubits {was} the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other {were} ten cubits.

And the other cherub {was} ten cubits: both the cherubims {were} of one measure and one size.

The height of the one cherub {was} ten cubits, and so {was it} of the other cherub.

And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the {one} wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. {they...: or, the cherubims stretched forth their wings}

And he overlaid the cherubims with gold.

And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. {open flowers: Heb. openings of flowers}

(...)

The two doors also {were of} olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid {them} with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees. {two...: or, leaves of the doors} {open flowers: Heb. openings of flowers}

(...)

And the two doors {were of} fir tree: the two leaves of the one door {were} folding, and the two leaves of the other door {were} folding.

And he carved {thereon} cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered {them} with gold fitted upon the carved work.

1 Kings 7

And under the brim of it round about there were knops which did compass it, for ten cubits, compassing the sea round about: the knops were in two rows, cast when it was cast.

It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set upon them above, and all their hinder parts were inward.

And the work of the bases was on this manner: they had panels; and there were panels between the ledges;

and on the panels that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubim; and upon the ledges there was a pedestal above; and beneath the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work.




2 Chronicles 3

Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for the building of the house of God.

And the greater house he ceiled with fir-wood, which he overlaid with fine gold, and wrought thereon palm-trees and chains.

He overlaid also the house, the beams, the thresholds, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubim on the walls.

And in the most holy house he made two cherubim of image work; and they overlaid them with gold.

And he made the veil of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubim thereon.

And he made chains in the oracle, and put [them] on the tops of the pillars; and he made a hundred pomegranates, and put them on the chains.

---------------------------------------------------------------




And that confirms images are not for veneration, not one of the images God ordained exist, was an icon.

That contradicts John of Damascus completely, if God wanted icons, these images would have been the start of them.

Forum Policy: (emphasis mine)
Quote
* Proper Language -- Offensive terms may be bannable based on the context of the sentence. Please use common sense when posting.  If you wouldn't say it in church, chances are it probably won't be appropriate here.  When in doubt, ask a moderator.  Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate:  please use Eastern Catholic.  Monophysite:  Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian.  Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology & academic discussion standards in dialog on this forum.

Practically speaking, academic discussion means not referring to figures on your side as "St. so and so" while referring to figures of the other party as "the heretic so and so."  Instead, as with standard academic discourse, all historical figures will be referred to by name and location only, for instance "Leo of Rome" and "Dioscoros of Alexandria." It is presumed that posters reflect the position of faith of their Communion; for instance, it is presumed that an Eastern Orthodox member regards Chalcedon as an ecumenical and God-inspired council, while an Oriental Orthodox member regards Dioscoros of Alexandria as a teacher of the faith.  Therefore, it is not necessary for posters to continuously and aggressively point out the obvious in respect to the enumeration of councils, recognition of saints, etc.


From here out, refer to him as "John of Damascus," "St. John of Damascus," or, "St. John the Damascene."
- Fr. George, Global Moderator
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 04:37:31 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.

Aren't you equivocating? Orthodox icons must be venerated, all worship through them goes to the prototype and they mediate grace and many have mystical experience via icons.

Your icons don't appear to be Orthodox, are you sure?



Again, you are using worship and veneration to mean the same thing. They do not and once you understand this it will help you to see why and how icons are used. We do not worship icons, therefore no, worship does not go through them to the prototype.

Worship is for God alone.



No, I did not. You are evading my argument:

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon. It is irrelevant if you allege some praise is dulia, and the other latria. God says He woun't allow carved images any praise :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible




If you will forgive me, but you have praised not only yourself, but the strength of your arguments many times throughout the course of both this thread and your thread on proselyting.  Perhaps before you attack our beloved icons, you should look to the golden statue you have built within.

You also have a love for quoting verses outside of not only their textual context, but historical context.  Quoting a condemnation of a graven image that is indeed stealing from the glory of God, as an image of Molech, Chemosh, or Ashtoreth does indeed do; speaks not at all to the images of Christ and His saints that we revere.

Finally, about the word "icon".  You must understand that a key idea in the Orthodox thought is that we are all called to be icons of Christ.  All men were created as "icons" of God, and through Christ we are called to be icons not only in appearance but in action.  The icons in our churches stand there as a reminder of this, and because of this we love them.  Just as we love the Blessed Virgin for birthing God, we love our saints for bearing God in their hearts, and we each seek to do the same in as much as we are given the ability to do so.

So people grovel at your feet, looking at you reverently, while worshiping God?

Why not?

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 05, 2010, 04:37:47 PM
No, I did not. You are evading my argument:

You've evaded every lengthy and substantial refutation of your points in this thread.  So your comment above should probably be filed under, "takes one to know one;" how awfully childish.

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon.  

*sigh* You bear no understanding of Orthodox phronema, so your condemnation sounds a bit like an English Language professor criticizing a Japanese Language professor for his grammar in Japanese.  I especially enjoy how you set up so many dichotomies that only exist within your framework, and not in reality.

It is irrelevant if you allege some praise is dulia, and the other latria. God says He woun't allow carved images any praise :[/i][/b]

I'll stop looking at photographs of my Wife, Daughter, Parents, Siblings, Goddaughter, etc., then, since I'm sure they wouldn't want any praise or glory going to the photos.  It's too bad - iconography reinforces the close relationship we have with the Lord our God, Who walked amongst us, Who called God the Father, "Daddy," and told us to call Him, "Father."

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible

It's a good thing we don't disobey the Lord, isn't it!

Go ahead and deal with the many substantial refutations of your points that exist in this thread (and in the other thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html ).  I'm sure you won't - you'll respond to the shorter posts and the ones (like this one) which don't claim to be specifically refuting your points.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 05, 2010, 04:40:20 PM
And that confirms images are not for veneration, not one of the images God ordained exist, was an icon.

That contradicts John D completely, if God wanted icons, these images would have been the start of them.

For a man claiming possession of the lofts of logic, this post is devoid of it.

His post is specifically in response to a foundational point of your argument - that God demanded that no images of anything should be made.  And yet you ignore that, and move on to something else.  It's a poor dodge.

And as for it "contradicting John D," it's St. John of Damascus, St. John the Damascene, or fully John of Damascus, and you have yet to substantially demonstrate that the above does indeed contradict what St. John said.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 04:40:59 PM
God ordered the making of several graven images of things above and below heaven.
References to icons ordered by God in red.

Exodus 25

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
(...)
And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

According to all that I shew thee,
(...)
And thou shalt make two cherubims  {of} gold, {of} beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: {even} of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. {of...: or, of the matter of the mercy seat}

And the cherubims shall stretch forth {their} wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces {shall look} one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

(...)

(In the same book and chapter, God communes with Men from among graven images)

And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which {are} upon the ark of the testimony, of all {things} which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

1 Kings 6
And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof {was} threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty {cubits}, and the height thereof thirty cubits.
(...)
And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying,

{Concerning} this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father:

And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.

(...)

And the cedar of the house within {was} carved with knops and open flowers: all {was} cedar; there was no stone seen. {knops: or, gourds} {open: Heb. openings of}

(...)

And within the oracle he made two cherubims {of} olive tree,  {each} ten cubits high. {olive: or, oily: Heb. trees of oil}

And five cubits {was} the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other {were} ten cubits.

And the other cherub {was} ten cubits: both the cherubims {were} of one measure and one size.

The height of the one cherub {was} ten cubits, and so {was it} of the other cherub.

And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the {one} wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. {they...: or, the cherubims stretched forth their wings}

And he overlaid the cherubims with gold.

And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. {open flowers: Heb. openings of flowers}

(...)

The two doors also {were of} olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid {them} with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees. {two...: or, leaves of the doors} {open flowers: Heb. openings of flowers}

(...)

And the two doors {were of} fir tree: the two leaves of the one door {were} folding, and the two leaves of the other door {were} folding.

And he carved {thereon} cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered {them} with gold fitted upon the carved work.

1 Kings 7

And under the brim of it round about there were knops which did compass it, for ten cubits, compassing the sea round about: the knops were in two rows, cast when it was cast.

It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set upon them above, and all their hinder parts were inward.

And the work of the bases was on this manner: they had panels; and there were panels between the ledges;

and on the panels that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubim; and upon the ledges there was a pedestal above; and beneath the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work.




2 Chronicles 3

Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for the building of the house of God.

And the greater house he ceiled with fir-wood, which he overlaid with fine gold, and wrought thereon palm-trees and chains.

He overlaid also the house, the beams, the thresholds, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubim on the walls.

And in the most holy house he made two cherubim of image work; and they overlaid them with gold.

And he made the veil of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubim thereon.

And he made chains in the oracle, and put [them] on the tops of the pillars; and he made a hundred pomegranates, and put them on the chains.

---------------------------------------------------------------




And that confirms images are not for veneration, not one of the images God ordained exist, was an icon.

That contradicts John D completely, if God wanted icons, these images would have been the start of them.

Really? How so? Because you say so? By what authority do you speak? Do you have over a thousand years of Church tradition to back your claims? You do not. Not even your Biblical claims support you as we have used the Bible to prove you wrong. You have been shown to be wrong now in this forum, and you have been shown to be wrong before you were born in the 7th ecumenical council.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 04:41:47 PM



Bait and Switch: The iconophile looks for a Jesus far away to worship, while the Omnipresent Christ is standing right there!



You must be thinking of different Iconophiles.  We use icons of our Lord, the saints, and the heavenly host to remind us that we participate in the heavenly worship here on earth.

Aren't you equivocating? Orthodox icons must be venerated, all worship through them goes to the prototype and they mediate grace and many have mystical experience via icons.

Your icons don't appear to be Orthodox, are you sure?



Again, you are using worship and veneration to mean the same thing. They do not and once you understand this it will help you to see why and how icons are used. We do not worship icons, therefore no, worship does not go through them to the prototype.

Worship is for God alone.



No, I did not. You are evading my argument:

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon. It is irrelevant if you allege some praise is dulia, and the other latria. God says He woun't allow carved images any praise :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible




If you will forgive me, but you have praised not only yourself, but the strength of your arguments many times throughout the course of both this thread and your thread on proselyting.  Perhaps before you attack our beloved icons, you should look to the golden statue you have built within.

You also have a love for quoting verses outside of not only their textual context, but historical context.  Quoting a condemnation of a graven image that is indeed stealing from the glory of God, as an image of Molech, Chemosh, or Ashtoreth does indeed do; speaks not at all to the images of Christ and His saints that we revere.

Finally, about the word "icon".  You must understand that a key idea in the Orthodox thought is that we are all called to be icons of Christ.  All men were created as "icons" of God, and through Christ we are called to be icons not only in appearance but in action.  The icons in our churches stand there as a reminder of this, and because of this we love them.  Just as we love the Blessed Virgin for birthing God, we love our saints for bearing God in their hearts, and we each seek to do the same in as much as we are given the ability to do so.

So people grovel at your feet, looking at you reverently, while worshiping God?

Why not?



I'm not that perfect  ;D 
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: genesisone on August 05, 2010, 04:54:26 PM
Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: genesisone on August 05, 2010, 05:17:58 PM
...nothing is gained while my argument remains towering over all, like the proverbial 200 lbs gorilla in the room.
Likening your own argument to a gorilla - what a delightful icon you have created! Don't expect me to venerate it.

....Lest you think I'm attacking you personally, such is not the case. Your knowledge and determination to press your point certainly deserve to be respected, though I and others find your zeal misdirected.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 05:25:46 PM
Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.

Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person. Context proves that, it speaks of the Icon creating all things, that was before He was incarnate.

Moreover, unlike your detestable images, Christ is Person, who functions in the divine economy as "the face of God," that "side" of infinite God that condescends to enter the realm of the finite, to reveal God:

KJV  2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2Co 4:6 KJV)

In other words, had Moses been allowed to see God's face here, he would have seen Christ:

 19 Then He said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
 20 But He said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live."
 21 And the LORD said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock.
 22 "So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by.
 23 "Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen."
 (Exo 33:19-23 NKJ)

Christ is the form of God He condescended appear in the finite realm of the creatures in heaven:

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, (Phi 2:6 NKJ)


Your icons cannot say that, therefore they are not the same.

Your argument rests upon the fallacy of equivocation, the word icon may be the same as found in the Bible, but the meaning you give it has changed, to become detestable images Christ would barf at, if still on earth.

As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

Or don't you realize Jesus is YHWH, the Word of God, the One who comes to man, to reveal God, or as here, rain down fire upon Sodom from YHWH the Father:

KJV  Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD(YHWH) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD(YHWH) out of heaven;
 (Gen 19:24 KJV)



While I consider Stephanus 1550 as the Received Text, I thought you would prefer the Greek Orthodox Version, or is it the same text?

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 05, 2010, 05:33:22 PM
Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.

Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person. Context proves that, it speaks of the Icon creating all things, that was before He was incarnate.

Moreover, unlike your detestable images, Christ is Person, who functions in the divine economy as "the face of God," that "side" of infinite God that condescends to enter the realm of the finite, to reveal God:

KJV  2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2Co 4:6 KJV)

Your icons cannot say that, therefore they are not the same.

Your argument rests upon the fallacy of equivocation, the word icon may be the same as found in the Bible, but the meaning you give it has changed, to become detestable images Christ would barf at, if still on earth.

As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

Or don't you realize Jesus is YHWH, the Word of God, the One who comes to man, to reveal God, or as here, rain down fire upon Sodom from YHWH the Father:

KJV  Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD(YHWH) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD(YHWH) out of heaven;
 (Gen 19:24 KJV)



While I consider Stephanus 1550 as the Received Text, I thought you would prefer the Greek Orthodox Version, or is it the same text?



So Christ barfed every time He entered a temple to worship?

If Jesus did not want His incarnate body imaged He should not have become incarnate, for He was surely imaged in the mind and memories of those people who saw the incarnation.

Saying that we should not image the incarnation of Christ's human body is saying that we should not take photographs or hold mnemonic images of ANY person, especially Christians as Christ resides in them.

Now, if you will please excuse me, I have to go say my pre-communion prayers before Divine Liturgy tonight and after Liturgy I must get my uniform ready for work tomorrow so I will not be able to debate you any more tonight.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 05, 2010, 05:34:56 PM
Alfred,

God said it plainly:

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: Exodus 20:4

Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth: Deuteronomy 5:8

Then, in several passages, He orders the making of graven images, on the very places of worship. On the very Ark. From between the statues of Cherubin, He will bless his people.

It is not about veneration or worship (although, they *were* in places of worship for some reason, and even in the Holy of Holies). It is about making or not making them.

So you have to accept that one of the following is true:

1) God is a liar and in contradiction;

2) There are more than one God in the Bible, one who tells us not to make images and another that tells us to;

3) The words in the commandment are not in the absolute, restrict sense.

If 1 or 2, you're no a Christian. If 3, then of course there are levels of meaning in those words. Because they are the ones in study, we have to look elsewhere to know what kind of attitudes towards images God allows and which one God forbids. This will be the limit of proper veneration and idolatry. Did God give us this reference? I believe He did in our saints and the way they dealt with images. But that will not do it for you, so let's look in the Holy Scriptures, which were selected and gathered by the icon venerating Fathers of the 1st Council:

And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith, and the ark of the testimony, Exodus 30:26 (Remember there were cherubim statues on the Ark. So they were annointed as well, and I doubt that was done casually or without reverence)

So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 2 Samuel 6:15  (They celebrate the presence of the Ark. With the Cherubin on it)

And Shebaniah, and Jehoshaphat, and Nethaneel, and Amasai, and Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, did blow with the trumpets before the ark of God: and Obededom and Jehiah {were} doorkeepers for the ark. 1 Crônicas 15:24 (Sacred rituals in the presence of the Ark. And the Cherubim on it).

And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken. 1 Samuel 4:22  (The Glory of God manifests through an object man-made with graven images on it. The Glory of God even departs for the simple taking of such object).

And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me? 2 Samuel 6:9
And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God {home} to me? 1 Chronicles 13:12 (It is a great honor to receive the object (with graven images) that bear the presence of the Lord. I also will say a halleluia for those who find out which other passage in the Bible we see this same sentence in reference to another Ark, which too, was bearing the presence of the Lord.)

And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for {his} error; and there he died by the ark of God. {error: or, rashness} 2 Samuel 6:7 (A disrespect toward the images ordained by God is so serious that even death may be the punishment. Graven images ordained by God are that sacred - and should be, since they were put in the Holy of Holies after all)

And Joshua spake unto the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass over before the people. And they took up the ark of the covenant, and went before the people. Josué 3:6 (Sacred objects are to be taken on procession before the people)


Now, after all this, God shows us the limit where veneration of images changes into idolatry:

Quote
Numbers 21

Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

First, God, as He usually does, orders the making of the graven image of a serpent wherein His healing Grace lies. Here we have a healing icon, like so many today. But even that can be corrupted. Later the serpent was indeed worshipped and God ordained its destruction.


In fact, one of the most astonishing punishments of God regards the dessacration of the objects from the Temple:

Daniel 5
1 Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand. 2 When Belshazzar tasted the wine, he gave orders to bring the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem, in order that the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 Then they brought the gold vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

5 Suddenly the fingers of a man’s hand emerged and began writing opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, and the king saw the back of the hand that did the writing. 6 Then the king’s face grew pale, and his thoughts alarmed him; and his hip joints went slack, and his knees began knocking together. 7 The king called aloud to bring in the conjurers, the Chaldeans and the diviners. The king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, “Any man who can read this inscription and explain its interpretation to me will be clothed with purple, and have a necklace of gold around his neck, and have authority as third ruler in the kingdom.” 8 Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the inscription or make known its interpretation to the king. 9 Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, his face grew even paler, and his nobles were perplexed.

Notice that in this passage, it is the act of treating the sacred objects (certainly not without graven images of lions, cherubins, oxen, palm trees and other things on them) as normal objects that causes a most amazing punishment.

God not only ordains the creating of graven images. He punishes their dessacration severily and teaches us the difference between veneration and worship.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 05:40:36 PM
Quote
Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

You mean monasteries?

Quote
He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person.

Ummmm, going back to Genesis, the first chapter, of course His flesh was in the image of God, by the very fact of being human.  "And God created Man in His own image".

Quote
Your icons cannot say that, therefore they are not the same.

We don't really expect our icons to say much, but when they do it's usually attributed as a miracle.

Quote
the word icon may be the same as found in the Bible, but the meaning you give it has changed, to become detestable images Christ would barf at, if still on earth.

Hopefully He never looked in a mirror, or happened to see His reflection in the Jordan.

Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

Ok, yet again, it would have been impossible for Jesus' similitude to be imaged in Moses', because as Deuteronomy clearly tells us, "You saw no likeness".  Hence the prohibition.

Quote
Or don't you realize Jesus is YHWH, the Word of God, the One who comes to man, to reveal God, or as here, rain down fire upon Sodom from YHWH the Father:

You might want to be careful throwing those four letters around, there's a commandment about that.  

Quote
While I consider Stephanus 1550 as the Received Text, I thought you would prefer the Greek Orthodox Version, or is it the same text?

It doesn't matter, here's the link to the same verse from the Greek Orthodox Church's website.  It's at the beginning of the "versicle" formatting, and says the same thing

http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/?id=11&book=Col&chapter=1 (http://onlinechapel.goarch.org/biblegreek/?id=11&book=Col&chapter=1)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 05:41:15 PM
Alfred,

God said it plainly:

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: Exodus 20:4

Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth: Deuteronomy 5:8

Then, in several passages, He orders the making of graven images, on the very places of worship. On the very Ark. From between the statues of Cherubin, He will bless his people.

It is not about veneration or worship (although, they *were* in places of worship for some reason, and even in the Holy of Holies). It is about making or not making them.

So you have to accept that one of the following is true:

1) God is a liar and in contradiction;

2) There are more than one God in the Bible, one who tells us not to make images and another that tells us to;

3) The words in the commandment are not in the absolute, restrict sense.

If 1 or 2, you're no a Christian. If 3, then of course there are levels of meaning in those words. Because they are the ones in study, we have to look elsewhere to know what kind of attitudes towards images God allows and which one God forbids. This will be the limit of proper veneration and idolatry. Did God give us this reference? I believe He did in our saints and the way they dealt with images. But that will not do it for you, so let's look in the Holy Scriptures, which were selected and gathered by the icon venerating Fathers of the 1st Council:

And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith, and the ark of the testimony, Exodus 30:26 (Remember there were cherubim statues on the Ark. So they were annointed as well, and I doubt that was done casually or without reverence)

So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 2 Samuel 6:15  (They celebrate the presence of the Ark. With the Cherubin on it)

And Shebaniah, and Jehoshaphat, and Nethaneel, and Amasai, and Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, did blow with the trumpets before the ark of God: and Obededom and Jehiah {were} doorkeepers for the ark. 1 Crônicas 15:24 (Sacred rituals in the presence of the Ark. And the Cherubim on it).

And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken. 1 Samuel 4:22  (The Glory of God manifests through an object man-made with graven images on it. The Glory of God even departs for the simple taking of such object).

And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me? 2 Samuel 6:9
And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God {home} to me? 1 Chronicles 13:12 (It is a great honor to receive the object (with graven images) that bear the presence of the Lord. I also will say a halleluia for those who find out which other passage in the Bible we see this same sentence in reference to another Ark, which too, was bearing the presence of the Lord.)

And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for {his} error; and there he died by the ark of God. {error: or, rashness} 2 Samuel 6:7 (A disrespect toward the images ordained by God is so serious that even death may be the punishment. Graven images ordained by God are that sacred - and should be, since they were put in the Holy of Holies after all)

And Joshua spake unto the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass over before the people. And they took up the ark of the covenant, and went before the people. Josué 3:6 (Sacred objects are to be taken on procession before the people)


Now, after all this, God shows us the limit where veneration of images changes into idolatry:

Quote
Numbers 21

Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

First, God, as He usually does, orders the making of the graven image of a serpent wherein His healing Grace lies. Here we have a healing icon, like so many today. But even that can be corrupted. Later the serpent was indeed worshipped and God ordained its destruction.


In fact, one of the most astonishing punishments of God regards the dessacration of the objects from the Temple:

Daniel 5
1 Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand. 2 When Belshazzar tasted the wine, he gave orders to bring the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem, in order that the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 Then they brought the gold vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

5 Suddenly the fingers of a man’s hand emerged and began writing opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, and the king saw the back of the hand that did the writing. 6 Then the king’s face grew pale, and his thoughts alarmed him; and his hip joints went slack, and his knees began knocking together. 7 The king called aloud to bring in the conjurers, the Chaldeans and the diviners. The king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, “Any man who can read this inscription and explain its interpretation to me will be clothed with purple, and have a necklace of gold around his neck, and have authority as third ruler in the kingdom.” 8 Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the inscription or make known its interpretation to the king. 9 Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, his face grew even paler, and his nobles were perplexed.

Notice that in this passage, it is the act of treating the sacred objects (certainly not without graven images of lions, cherubins, oxen, palm trees and other things on them) as normal objects that causes a most amazing punishment.

God not only ordains the creating of graven images. He punishes their dessacration severily and teaches us the difference between veneration and worship.

Non sequitur, you failed to prove God wanted any of those images venerated as the orthodox venerate their images.

God has no problem with images at all, His objection was to being imaged and venerated via that image. It destroys His transcendence in the heart of the worshiper, replacing Him with a detestable likeness that utterly misrepresents God.



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: antiderivative on August 05, 2010, 06:15:58 PM
Non sequitur, you failed to prove God wanted any of those images venerated as the orthodox venerate their images.

God has no problem with images at all, His objection was to being imaged and venerated via that image. It destroys His transcendence in the heart of the worshiper, replacing Him with a detestable likeness that utterly misrepresents God.
I'm confused about the type of iconoclasm you are teaching. Is it ok to make images of Christ, and just not venerate them? Should images of Christ be avoided completely? Is it just ok to make images of things other than Christ? Because the verses you use against us suggest a prohibition of all images (even non-religious), and if interpreted literally, God would contradict Himself when giving instruction for the Tabernacle. None of those verses say anything about veneration. There are however, Biblical instances where veneration was shown to beings other than God, including people and angels. For example, Joshua 5:14:
Quote
And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?
The word "worship" is used here, newer translations say "reverence", but the meaning is clear. In older English, the word "worship" could mean either the worship due to God alone and it could also mean honor. Actually, in his "Against Those Who Decry Holy Images", St. John of Damascus cites several instances of this happening in the Bible, including the one I just cited. So if veneration is shown to others besides God, then why can't it be shown to holy images? How do you know the Israelites did not venerate the carved Cherubim, when by making them they were already violating a literal interpretation of the verses prohibiting idolatry? Reconcile what Joshua did with your previous statement:
Quote
God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon.
I could reword that:
Quote
God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by an angel.
Also, in the verse after Joshua 5:14, the angel implies that the ground Joshua is standing on deserves a type of veneration:
Quote
And the captain of the LORD's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 05, 2010, 06:25:13 PM
You keep repeating the argument, "As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged," and you use the logic that, "since Jesus is God, and God is unchanging, therefore Jesus wouldn't want an image of His body" in order to support it.

I will not doubt that God is unchanging.  But God's unchanging-ness doesn't limit His ability to work changes in His creation.  To wit:

- He created time, space, and living beings, which were not there from the beginning.  In order to do this, He limited Himself.
- He created human beings in His image and likeness, and gave them free will.  In order to do this, He limited Himself.
- He flooded the world to rid it of evil, but then promised to Noah that He would never do it again.  In order to do this, He limited Himself.
- He took flesh, in the person of the Son.  In order to do this, He limited Himself.
- Even though the law said people could divorce, He said they shouldn't, and reminded them that the law (which was His law, mind you) was merciful for their hardness of heart.  He told us that He perfected the law in Himself - something that denotes change.

Thus, your assertion that, "Jesus wouldn't change what He said to us regarding images of Himself after His incarnation because He is God and God does not change" doesn't hold much water considering what took place in the history of our relationship to God.  God does not change in His Essence; but His activity in the world has changed, because of His voluntary self-limitation; He created the world, us, spoke to us, dwelt amongst us, sent His Spirit into the World in a unique and special way (even though He is everywhere present and filling all things).  I can hardly believe that someone with the apparent knowledge of the scripture could make such a mistake as to claim that God can't change His directives because He can't change.  It hardly makes any of your other assertions readable; if you're going to make a big mistake like this, I doubt the rest of your material is worth the time or effort to process.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Thankful on August 05, 2010, 06:35:10 PM
Forgive if I am mistaken, but is not this another example of what you are saying Fr. George?

Quote
Genesis 18:16-33

When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him

Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"

"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"

He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"

He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"

He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"

He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 05, 2010, 06:37:14 PM
I can't believe that I hadn't noticed this in the midst of your other tomfoolery:

"God had revealed Himself in fire at Horeb, condescending to a Personal relationship with HIs people. It would be abhorrent to God if His children began to visualize Him as some dungy image as they communed with His Spirit."

So your conclusion is that an icon of Christ is visualizing God in a dungy image?

- God became a man in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ, no?
- Jesus was human being, true flesh, walking in the world, seen by human beings, no?
- His body was perceivable in the world (i.e. there was no part of His body that was invisible, beyond that which was covered by clothing, most of which was removed at His Crucifixion), no?

So His body, the body of the Son of God Incarnate, was seen fully amongst men.  He spoke amongst us; we wrote His words, and use them.  He touched us; our bodies were healed by Him, and remained in the world beyond His Ascension into Heaven.  He revealed Himself to us; we saw Him, we remembered Him, we now carry our images of Him to remind us of the true flesh He took.  They receive no praise - only He does.

If you cannot accept this, then you cannot be or claim to be a Nicean Christian, as they (a) had icons (amongst them ones painted by St. Luke!), (b) used icons, and (c) did not idolize the icons, and the icons did not "take," "distract," or otherwise "distort" the worship that went directly to God.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 05, 2010, 06:37:48 PM
Thankful,

Yes.  Thank you!
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: genesisone on August 05, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
While I consider Stephanus 1550 as the Received Text, I thought you would prefer the Greek Orthodox Version, or is it the same text?
My choice was simply a matter of expediency. There were three versions available for quick reference (i.e. copy & paste  :)) at www.biblegateway.com; all three versions were identical for this verse.

When you attribute quotations to "Orthodox Bible", which version actually is it?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
Alfred,

God said it plainly:

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: Exodus 20:4

Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth: Deuteronomy 5:8

Then, in several passages, He orders the making of graven images, on the very places of worship. On the very Ark. From between the statues of Cherubin, He will bless his people.

It is not about veneration or worship (although, they *were* in places of worship for some reason, and even in the Holy of Holies). It is about making or not making them.

So you have to accept that one of the following is true:

1) God is a liar and in contradiction;

2) There are more than one God in the Bible, one who tells us not to make images and another that tells us to;

3) The words in the commandment are not in the absolute, restrict sense.

If 1 or 2, you're no a Christian. If 3, then of course there are levels of meaning in those words. Because they are the ones in study, we have to look elsewhere to know what kind of attitudes towards images God allows and which one God forbids. This will be the limit of proper veneration and idolatry. Did God give us this reference? I believe He did in our saints and the way they dealt with images. But that will not do it for you, so let's look in the Holy Scriptures, which were selected and gathered by the icon venerating Fathers of the 1st Council:

And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith, and the ark of the testimony, Exodus 30:26 (Remember there were cherubim statues on the Ark. So they were annointed as well, and I doubt that was done casually or without reverence)

So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 2 Samuel 6:15  (They celebrate the presence of the Ark. With the Cherubin on it)

And Shebaniah, and Jehoshaphat, and Nethaneel, and Amasai, and Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, did blow with the trumpets before the ark of God: and Obededom and Jehiah {were} doorkeepers for the ark. 1 Crônicas 15:24 (Sacred rituals in the presence of the Ark. And the Cherubim on it).

And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken. 1 Samuel 4:22  (The Glory of God manifests through an object man-made with graven images on it. The Glory of God even departs for the simple taking of such object).

And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me? 2 Samuel 6:9
And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God {home} to me? 1 Chronicles 13:12 (It is a great honor to receive the object (with graven images) that bear the presence of the Lord. I also will say a halleluia for those who find out which other passage in the Bible we see this same sentence in reference to another Ark, which too, was bearing the presence of the Lord.)

And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for {his} error; and there he died by the ark of God. {error: or, rashness} 2 Samuel 6:7 (A disrespect toward the images ordained by God is so serious that even death may be the punishment. Graven images ordained by God are that sacred - and should be, since they were put in the Holy of Holies after all)

And Joshua spake unto the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass over before the people. And they took up the ark of the covenant, and went before the people. Josué 3:6 (Sacred objects are to be taken on procession before the people)


Now, after all this, God shows us the limit where veneration of images changes into idolatry:

Quote
Numbers 21

Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

First, God, as He usually does, orders the making of the graven image of a serpent wherein His healing Grace lies. Here we have a healing icon, like so many today. But even that can be corrupted. Later the serpent was indeed worshipped and God ordained its destruction.


In fact, one of the most astonishing punishments of God regards the dessacration of the objects from the Temple:

Daniel 5
1 Belshazzar the king held a great feast for a thousand of his nobles, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand. 2 When Belshazzar tasted the wine, he gave orders to bring the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem, in order that the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 Then they brought the gold vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

5 Suddenly the fingers of a man’s hand emerged and began writing opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, and the king saw the back of the hand that did the writing. 6 Then the king’s face grew pale, and his thoughts alarmed him; and his hip joints went slack, and his knees began knocking together. 7 The king called aloud to bring in the conjurers, the Chaldeans and the diviners. The king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, “Any man who can read this inscription and explain its interpretation to me will be clothed with purple, and have a necklace of gold around his neck, and have authority as third ruler in the kingdom.” 8 Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the inscription or make known its interpretation to the king. 9 Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, his face grew even paler, and his nobles were perplexed.

Notice that in this passage, it is the act of treating the sacred objects (certainly not without graven images of lions, cherubins, oxen, palm trees and other things on them) as normal objects that causes a most amazing punishment.

God not only ordains the creating of graven images. He punishes their dessacration severily and teaches us the difference between veneration and worship.
Excellent use of Daniel.  I'd just add, God used an image to get His point across, and on the wall.  In fact, other than the Tablets of the Law, and Christ writining in the dirt, this is the only account of God writing anything directly.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: genesisone on August 05, 2010, 07:39:50 PM
....Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.
....Moreover, unlike your detestable images,
....Christ would barf at, if still on earth.
First of all, terms such as these are clearly there to inflame the emotions. Please be respectful.
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.
But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.
Quote
Or don't you realize Jesus is YHWH, the Word of God, the One who comes to man, to reveal God, or as here, rain down fire upon Sodom from YHWH the Father:

KJV  Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD(YHWH) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD(YHWH) out of heaven;
 (Gen 19:24 KJV)
I'm not sure that you realize that Jesus is a human being - just as much as He is God. Earlier you quoted Philippians 2:6. Look at verse 7: but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. (NKJV) In what way was He (in a physical sense) different from us? Not at all.

You quoted Exodus 33:20: But He said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live." (NKJV) (I believe you will find that is how they wish to be cited.) You then say that it was Christ whom Moses saw. Well, what happened many generations later? MANY people saw His face.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: SolEX01 on August 05, 2010, 08:33:48 PM
Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.

Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person. Context proves that, it speaks of the Icon creating all things, that was before He was incarnate.

You have not convinced me of anything just as the others have not convinced you of anything.

You're doing a poor job in trying to proselytize us to Mormonism.  Your arguments against the worship of graven images also exist at the website below:

The LDS Daily WOOL Archive - "No Graven Images" (http://www.molalla.net/members/sbirk/nogravenimages.shtml)

Moreover, unlike your detestable images, Christ is Person, who functions in the divine economy as "the face of God," that "side" of infinite God that condescends to enter the realm of the finite, to reveal God:

Reveal God to whom - Joseph Smith, the modern day St. Constantine for the Mormon faith?   ???
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 09:47:20 PM
Non sequitur, you failed to prove God wanted any of those images venerated as the orthodox venerate their images.

God has no problem with images at all, His objection was to being imaged and venerated via that image. It destroys His transcendence in the heart of the worshiper, replacing Him with a detestable likeness that utterly misrepresents God.
I'm confused about the type of iconoclasm you are teaching. Is it ok to make images of Christ, and just not venerate them? Should images of Christ be avoided completely? Is it just ok to make images of things other than Christ? Because the verses you use against us suggest a prohibition of all images (even non-religious), and if interpreted literally, God would contradict Himself when giving instruction for the Tabernacle. None of those verses say anything about veneration. There are however, Biblical instances where veneration was shown to beings other than God, including people and angels. For example, Joshua 5:14:
Quote
And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?
The word "worship" is used here, newer translations say "reverence", but the meaning is clear. In older English, the word "worship" could mean either the worship due to God alone and it could also mean honor. Actually, in his "Against Those Who Decry Holy Images", St. John of Damascus cites several instances of this happening in the Bible, including the one I just cited. So if veneration is shown to others besides God, then why can't it be shown to holy images? How do you know the Israelites did not venerate the carved Cherubim, when by making them they were already violating a literal interpretation of the verses prohibiting idolatry? Reconcile what Joshua did with your previous statement:
Quote
God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon.
I could reword that:
Quote
God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by an angel.
Also, in the verse after Joshua 5:14, the angel implies that the ground Joshua is standing on deserves a type of veneration:
Quote
And the captain of the LORD's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.


Perhaps my claim to be an iconoclast is an exaggeration.

As God commanded images be made for the Temple, its clear He has no problem with images per se.

But images of Himself are forbidden, and those I object to....and any images that are venerated.

As for the Captain's veneration/worship, its irrelevant to God.

God forbade every kind of icon of Himself, what people do doesn't affect that at all.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 05, 2010, 10:06:47 PM
It begins with "you never saw my similitude", to paraphrase, "you better not misrepresent me."

They had no form with which to represent God because none had been revealed to them. We do because God revealed himself as a man.

Quote
God does not change, Jesus is God, therefore He does not want an image of His similitude either.

The prohibition was based on the fact that God had not revealed a form to the Israelites. This changed when God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

So you are saying:

If only the Israelites had seen God's similitude, which is unlike anything in creation, God would have wanted it imaged. Therefore, as God has revealed His similitude in the likeness of Jesus' incarnate Body, God wants it imaged.

So, if God didn't want His similitude imaged, then He wouldn't want His incarnate body imaged because God does not change (Mal 3:6) and Jesus is God (Joh 1:1; 12:41 cp Isa 6:1ff).

That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
(Deu 4:15-19 KJV)

Moreover, the warning "take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves" connected to the categorical "(ye saw) no manner of similitude" ( כָּל־תְּמוּנָה, lit., "all; every; any" similitude), has the force of: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, do not image God."

Inasmuch as the divine holiness is the separateness of the Divine Being from all finiteness of the creature, it includes the impossibility of forming an image of the Divine Being. For the connection of the two ideas compare the passage Isa. 40:25.- Oehler, G. F., & Day, G. E. (2009). Theology of the Old Testament. (111). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

KJV Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
(Isa 40:25 KJV)

Also contradicting you is the fact Moses saw God's similitude yet didn't make an image of it: [/i]

TKJV Numbers 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (Num 12:8 KJV)

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
(Exo 33:20-23 KJV)

Although this is a "reflex" of the divine form, according to John Damascene's rational, Moses should have imaged it, God would have wanted it so.

That your interpretation is impossible--- none reading Deut 4:15ff; 5:8; Ex 20:4, without icon spectacles comes away believing God wants to be imaged.

23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
(Deu 4:23-24 KJV)

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible

Replacing the imageless transcendent God with a detestable image in the psyche of man is an abomination of desolation, so defiling God's presence is impossible:

"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OB

Hence the apostle warns:

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)

Here's how it is.

Me:
I'm going to continue to point out that the prohibition was made explicitly because the Israelites saw no similitude for them to image. That is what is says in the text. That is exactly is what it says. It does not say anything else. Period. I'm going to continue to point out that we have seen God revealed in Jesus Christ in the incarnation. I'm going to say that by denying these things, you are denying 1) the incarnation that we saw God manifest in the flesh and He now has a revealed form and 2) you fail to see Christ as the fulfillment of the law because the reason for the prohibition is the lack of a revealed similitude which is now revealed in Christ (2Cor 3:13-16, Is 6:9-10).

You:
You're going to keep repeating that God commanded no image of Himself while ignoring why He gave the commandment. You're going to continue to falsely accuse the Orthodox of idolatry. You're going to ignore the reverence which was shown to the Ark, which had two angels representing God's presence in between them. You're also goint to ignore the reverence that the Israelites showed their kings who were anointed by God. You're going to ignore the reverence given to the temple where God dwelt among His people.

We are caught in a cycle of You, Me, repeat. Truth is truth regardless of one's ability to convince someone or a person's refusal to accept it as such. You can stick to your personal opinion on this matter and I'll stick with what Christianity has always taught going back to when liturgies were celebrated in catacombs.

Illuimine our hearts, O Master who loves mankind...
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 10:22:52 PM
It begins with "you never saw my similitude", to paraphrase, "you better not misrepresent me."

They had no form with which to represent God because none had been revealed to them. We do because God revealed himself as a man.

Quote
God does not change, Jesus is God, therefore He does not want an image of His similitude either.

The prohibition was based on the fact that God had not revealed a form to the Israelites. This changed when God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

So you are saying:

If only the Israelites had seen God's similitude, which is unlike anything in creation, God would have wanted it imaged. Therefore, as God has revealed His similitude in the likeness of Jesus' incarnate Body, God wants it imaged.

So, if God didn't want His similitude imaged, then He wouldn't want His incarnate body imaged because God does not change (Mal 3:6) and Jesus is God (Joh 1:1; 12:41 cp Isa 6:1ff).

That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
(Deu 4:15-19 KJV)

Moreover, the warning "take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves" connected to the categorical "(ye saw) no manner of similitude" ( כָּל־תְּמוּנָה, lit., "all; every; any" similitude), has the force of: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, do not image God."

Inasmuch as the divine holiness is the separateness of the Divine Being from all finiteness of the creature, it includes the impossibility of forming an image of the Divine Being. For the connection of the two ideas compare the passage Isa. 40:25.- Oehler, G. F., & Day, G. E. (2009). Theology of the Old Testament. (111). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

KJV Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
(Isa 40:25 KJV)

Also contradicting you is the fact Moses saw God's similitude yet didn't make an image of it: [/i]

TKJV Numbers 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (Num 12:8 KJV)

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
(Exo 33:20-23 KJV)

Although this is a "reflex" of the divine form, according to John Damascene's rational, Moses should have imaged it, God would have wanted it so.

That your interpretation is impossible--- none reading Deut 4:15ff; 5:8; Ex 20:4, without icon spectacles comes away believing God wants to be imaged.

23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
(Deu 4:23-24 KJV)

God demands exclusive devotion, no divided praise like that received by a prototype of an icon :

"I am the Lord God; this is my Name. I will not give my glory to another, not My praise to carved images."-Isaiah 42:8 Orthodox Bible

Replacing the imageless transcendent God with a detestable image in the psyche of man is an abomination of desolation, so defiling God's presence is impossible:

"Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing? They commit great acts of lawlessness here to keep Me from My sanctuary."-Ezekiel 8:6 OB

Hence the apostle warns:

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1Jo 5:21 NKJ)

Here's how it is.

Me:
I'm going to continue to point out that the prohibition was made explicitly because the Israelites saw no similitude for them to image. That is what is says in the text. That is exactly is what it says. It does not say anything else. Period. I'm going to continue to point out that we have seen God revealed in Jesus Christ in the incarnation. I'm going to say that by denying these things, you are denying 1) the incarnation that we saw God manifest in the flesh and He now has a revealed form and 2) you fail to see Christ as the fulfillment of the law because the reason for the prohibition is the lack of a revealed similitude which is now revealed in Christ (2Cor 3:13-16, Is 6:9-10).

You:
You're going to keep repeating that God commanded no image of Himself while ignoring why He gave the commandment. You're going to continue to falsely accuse the Orthodox of idolatry. You're going to ignore the reverence which was shown to the Ark, which had two angels representing God's presence in between them. You're also goint to ignore the reverence that the Israelites showed their kings who were anointed by God. You're going to ignore the reverence given to the temple where God dwelt among His people.

We are caught in a cycle of You, Me, repeat. Truth is truth regardless of one's ability to convince someone or a person's refusal to accept it as such. You can stick to your personal opinion on this matter and I'll stick with what Christianity has always taught going back to when liturgies were celebrated in catacombs.

Illuimine our hearts, O Master who loves mankind...

You are in a cycle, not me. You ignore my arguments, keep repeating your own. Have fun, enjoy yourself.

You don't give me a reason to debate/dialogue/compare ideas, because you refuse to.

If someone treated you, as you do me, you would be angry....

I'm not, I consider it all joy.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 10:30:36 PM
Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.

Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person. Context proves that, it speaks of the Icon creating all things, that was before He was incarnate.

You have not convinced me of anything just as the others have not convinced you of anything.

You're doing a poor job in trying to proselytize us to Mormonism.  Your arguments against the worship of graven images also exist at the website below:

The LDS Daily WOOL Archive - "No Graven Images" (http://www.molalla.net/members/sbirk/nogravenimages.shtml)

Moreover, unlike your detestable images, Christ is Person, who functions in the divine economy as "the face of God," that "side" of infinite God that condescends to enter the realm of the finite, to reveal God:

Reveal God to whom - Joseph Smith, the modern day St. Constantine for the Mormon faith?   ???

Congratulations, that took the prize for the most inept smear I have ever experienced.

No doubt you have realized the endless possibilities: "Alfred Persson prays, Muslims pray, he is Muslim!"; "Alfred Persson showers, Hitler showered, He is a Nazi"

I can't wait to see what I am guilty next.





Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: theistgal on August 05, 2010, 10:42:03 PM
OK, so how about we just ask you directly:  are you a Mormon?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 10:51:40 PM
While I consider Stephanus 1550 as the Received Text, I thought you would prefer the Greek Orthodox Version, or is it the same text?
My choice was simply a matter of expediency. There were three versions available for quick reference (i.e. copy & paste  :)) at www.biblegateway.com; all three versions were identical for this verse.

When you attribute quotations to "Orthodox Bible", which version actually is it?

Good question, I looked it up in the forward of "the Orthodox Study Bible," Thomas Nelson, for the OT it uses the St Athanasius Academy Septuagint by the St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, the NT used the same Majority Text as the NKJV.

That text differs from Stephanus 1550 in a few areas, and the ones used by the KJV, such as the Johannine comma, however I see they included it in translation, without the "critical" notes questioning its presence.

It is because Stephanus 1550 has the "Johannine Comma" that I think it among the best of the Byzantine family of mss.



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: jnorm888 on August 05, 2010, 10:52:53 PM
Quote
You are in a cycle, not me. You ignore my arguments, keep repeating your own. Have fun, enjoy yourself.

You don't give me a reason to debate/dialogue/compare ideas, because you refuse to.

If someone treated you, as you do me, you would be angry....

I'm not, I consider it all joy.


What in the world are you talking about? We answered you plenty of times! You are the one who refuse to look at the arguments of others. You are the one who refuse to look at the plain reading of the text. You are the one who refuse to look at the historical facts on the ground. You are the one who refuse to look at all the implications! You are the one who refuse to admit that the various arguments are connected and relate to the issue at hand.


You are also the one who made tons of mistakes all throughout this thread and yet refuse to admit that you made them.







ICXC NIKA
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 05, 2010, 10:58:48 PM
Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.

Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person. Context proves that, it speaks of the Icon creating all things, that was before He was incarnate.

You have not convinced me of anything just as the others have not convinced you of anything.

You're doing a poor job in trying to proselytize us to Mormonism.  Your arguments against the worship of graven images also exist at the website below:

The LDS Daily WOOL Archive - "No Graven Images" (http://www.molalla.net/members/sbirk/nogravenimages.shtml)

Moreover, unlike your detestable images, Christ is Person, who functions in the divine economy as "the face of God," that "side" of infinite God that condescends to enter the realm of the finite, to reveal God:

Reveal God to whom - Joseph Smith, the modern day St. Constantine for the Mormon faith?   ???
SolEX01, for once I do have to agree with Alfred.  Your attempt to connect him to Mormonism is one of the lamest, most illogical connections I've ever seen anyone make.  Seeing all the absurd interpretations of Scripture I've seen Alfred submit to this thread, that's saying something.  It does NOT follow that just because Alfred says, "X," and the Mormons also say, "X," that Alfred is a Mormon.  If you're going to try to refute Alfred Persson on this debate, you might try something more coherent than that.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 11:01:18 PM
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.

I noted that point and asked a relevant question: Given the gist of Deut 4:12ff; 5:8; Exod 20:4, what makes you think God WANTS to be imaged?

In other words,  icons are about your needs, wants, desires.

But when I read scripture, God's want and desire is no images of Him at all.

John of Damascus discusses his need for images...and while he cited passages showing God does not want images...it was only to misdirect away from them.



(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) You were warned in an earlier post to refer to St. John of Damascus as "St. John of Damascus," "St. John the Damascene," "John of Damascus," or "John the Damascene," and NOT as "John D," which does not meet the minimum "academic level of discussion" we expect on this site.

Your warning status does not inhibit your posting ability.  It will only last for 15 days.

If you feel this warning is in error, please PM (using the "My messages" link at the top of the page) Fr. Chris, the Forum Administrator.

+ Fr. George, Global Moderator
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 05, 2010, 11:04:22 PM
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.

I noted that point and asked a relevant question: Given the gist of Deut 4:12ff; 5:8; Exod 20:4, what makes you think God WANTS to be imaged?
He made Himself incarnate.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 11:09:01 PM
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.

I noted that point and asked a relevant question: Given the gist of Deut 4:12ff; 5:8; Exod 20:4, what makes you think God WANTS to be imaged?
He made Himself incarnate.

BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 11:24:05 PM
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.

I noted that point and asked a relevant question: Given the gist of Deut 4:12ff; 5:8; Exod 20:4, what makes you think God WANTS to be imaged?
He made Himself incarnate.

BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 05, 2010, 11:24:17 PM
You are in a cycle, not me. You ignore my arguments, keep repeating your own. Have fun, enjoy yourself.

We both are. You have made your argument - God doesn't want images of Himself. I have made mine - that was because He never revealed Himself in a form that could be imaged, which is done in Christ. Neither one of us plans on changing.

Quote
You don't give me a reason to debate/dialogue/compare ideas, because you refuse to.

We have. We both stated and compared our positions and have reached our conclusions.

Quote
If someone treated you, as you do me, you would be angry....

I'm not, I consider it all joy.

I apologize if you feel I have unfairly mistreated you.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 11:28:46 PM
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.

I noted that point and asked a relevant question: Given the gist of Deut 4:12ff; 5:8; Exod 20:4, what makes you think God WANTS to be imaged?
He made Himself incarnate.

BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

That does not compute, God ruled out images in male human flesh.

He made us in His image, He imaged us...and forbade we image Him...including our using male human flesh.


So I ask again, where does God SAY He wants to be imaged BY US?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 11:34:42 PM
You are in a cycle, not me. You ignore my arguments, keep repeating your own. Have fun, enjoy yourself.

We both are. You have made your argument - God doesn't want images of Himself. I have made mine - that was because He never revealed Himself in a form that could be imaged, which is done in Christ. Neither one of us plans on changing.

Quote
You don't give me a reason to debate/dialogue/compare ideas, because you refuse to.

We have. We both stated and compared our positions and have reached our conclusions.

Quote
If someone treated you, as you do me, you would be angry....

I'm not, I consider it all joy.

I apologize if you feel I have unfairly mistreated you.

Better than an apology would be a dialogue.

If you disagree with my statements, prove me wrong, that's better than telling me what you believe...that isn't dialogue, its not debate, its a tirade.

I give everyone great latitude...the discipline of NOT making claims, but actually treating an argument, is hard...takes time.

Most folks think its fine "you say your piece, I say mine". They are satisfied, but then the reasons for belief remain hidden.

I like discussing why people believe what they do...its the only way to discover if one is right or wrong.


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 05, 2010, 11:40:37 PM
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.

I noted that point and asked a relevant question: Given the gist of Deut 4:12ff; 5:8; Exod 20:4, what makes you think God WANTS to be imaged?
He made Himself incarnate.

BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

That does not compute, God ruled out images in male human flesh.


What does not compute?  God made man in His image.  Man sullied this image by the Fall.  So, any depiction of God as man before the Incarnation would be a depiction of a fractured image, like looking into a fun-house mirror.  Christ, the Second Adam and Incarnate God, redeemed Man from the Fall by His perfect sacrifice and Resurrection.

Where does God specifically say that we are no longer to dig holes in the ground for our excrement?  Where does God specifically state that the Jewish sacrifices are abolished?  Where does God specifically state that the death sentence for sexual infractions are abolished?  We only reach these things by inferences.  St Peter has a vision of unclean animals that refers specifically to spreading the Gospel to Gentiles, but it is acceptable for us to eat shellfish.  Our Lord's death and resurrection mean that grace has superseded the Law, so circumcision is no longer required, but God never specifically stated this, St Paul inferred it.  Our Lord stated "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." so we no longer cast stones (except in the cases of some who believe the death penalty is still a requirement for murder), but He never specifically says that stones are no longer to be cast.  What makes this one pronouncement any different?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 05, 2010, 11:49:07 PM
What does not compute?  God made man in His image.  Man sullied this image by the Fall.  So, any depiction of God as man before the Incarnation would be a depiction of a fractured image, like looking into a fun-house mirror.  Christ, the Second Adam and Incarnate God, redeemed Man from the Fall by His perfect sacrifice and Resurrection...

Impossible, that is a denial Jesus made Himself of no reputation, was like as we on all points, and clearly contradicted by prophecy and Jesus' neighbors:

 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Phi 2:7 KJV)


NKJ  Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15 NKJ)

NKJ  Isaiah 53:2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
 (Isa 53:2 NKJ)

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

There was nothing visible that distinguished the second Adam, from the first, save the first may have been more handsome.


NEVER does God say He wants us to image Him, NEVER.

That is the fundamental flaw in Orthodox argument...its all about their need for images...how these help them...never does anyone ask, Does God want to be imaged by us? Ok, where does He say that?

On the contrary, He forbade images of Himself, in very strong words.





Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 05, 2010, 11:59:33 PM
Perhaps my claim to be an iconoclast is an exaggeration.

As God commanded images be made for the Temple, its clear He has no problem with images per se.

But images of Himself are forbidden, and those I object to....and any images that are venerated.

As for the Captain's veneration/worship, its irrelevant to God.

God forbade every kind of icon of Himself, what people do doesn't affect that at all.
She did said yes.
(http://www.orthodoxgifts.com/images/annunciatioN.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Oranta.jpg/377px-Oranta.jpg)(http://brianakira.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/nativity-icon.jpg)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 12:01:20 AM
Then you are left with one option:

All images of Christ must be condemned, whether or not veneration is offered to said image.  It's the only way to be true to the principles you proclaim.

Because I can tell you from experience, any young child whose first creed is "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so," is going to be stirred by an image of our Lord to feelings of love and devotion.

These images are obviously a deadly poison, corrupting us from our very youth.

Oh, won't somebody please think of the children?!!  :o

Seriously, it is an all or nothing proposition: strict adherence to the Law, or the sanctifying Grace.  If God proclaims in the Law that images of Himself are forbidden then there is no such thing as an innocent image in this regard

Quote
There was nothing visible that distinguished the second Adam, from the first, save the first may have been more handsome.

.

The Tranfiguration was quite visible, by the way.  The Ascension was very visible.  The glorified Lord seen by Sts Stephen, Paul, and John was far different in appearance from Adam.

I'm done for the evening.  Time for my prayers and bed.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 12:01:35 AM
Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

But that's the whole point: His incarnate Body. You cannot image in physical form that which does not exist in physical form, and hence the prohibition.

I noted that point and asked a relevant question: Given the gist of Deut 4:12ff; 5:8; Exod 20:4, what makes you think God WANTS to be imaged?
He made Himself incarnate.

BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?
Where in Scripture does God say He wants us to follow the Scriptures ALONE?  Last I knew, Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not the Scriptures.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 12:04:40 AM
Then you are left with one option:

All images of Christ must be condemned, whether or not veneration is offered to said image.  It's the only way to be true to the principles you proclaim.
.

Straw man.

Only images that are venerated have no scriptural warrant...God authorized images for the temple, but these were never venerated.

God NEVER says "image me", never. He does say "don't image me", often.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 12:07:08 AM
BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?

Where in Scripture does God say He wants us to follow the Scriptures ALONE?

You are changing the subject, fact is God NEVER says "image me please." Rather He very emphatically forbids the practice.

Iconophiles follow their own desires, not those of God, when they image Jesus.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: theistgal on August 06, 2010, 12:22:05 AM
So when you pray, what (if anything) do you look at?  The sky?  The corner of your ceiling?  The roof of your taxicab?

An icon is fundamentally just a tool to help the person who's praying focus on the Person they're praying to - nothing more, nothing less?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Salpy on August 06, 2010, 12:31:37 AM
Alfred,

I admit I have not read every post in this thread, so forgive me if you already addressed this.  I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Would you be offended if someone were to deliberately step on, tear up, spit on, or otherwise show contempt for an image of Christ, let's say this famous picture?

(http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/Head-of-Christ.jpg)

http://www.warnersallman.com/collection/images/head-of-christ/

Wouldn't that offend you?  If that were to offend you, aren't you in some way treating an image of Christ as something special?  Wouldn't you stop someone who was doing the above desecration?  Wouldn't that in a sense be showing respect for the image?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: antiderivative on August 06, 2010, 12:39:54 AM
Then you are left with one option:

All images of Christ must be condemned, whether or not veneration is offered to said image.  It's the only way to be true to the principles you proclaim.
.

Straw man.

Only images that are venerated have no scriptural warrant...God authorized images for the temple, but these were never venerated.

God NEVER says "image me", never. He does say "don't image me", often.



The Bible offers no distinction between venerated images and non-venerated images. You don't know if or if not the images in the temple were venerated. The underlying base of your argument is Sola Scriptura, in other words: "if it's not in the Bible, then it's not part of Christianity." You assume that since the Bible is silent on whether the temple images were venerated, then venerating them must have been forbidden. We will only be convinced if you can show us verses that contradict the Tradition that teaches us to venerate images. Like many have said, the verses you use from Deuteronomy forbid imaging God simply because He had not revealed Himself in a form that could be comprehended. Apparently you don't buy this, but you must have your reasons to believe this rule still applies? We have are reasons to interpret that verse the way we do, and that's where the role of church Tradition comes in.

Quote
Iconophiles follow their own desires, not those of God, when they image Jesus.
We follow the desires of God in accordance to Apostolic Tradition. If the iconodules were wrong, than most of Christian history was spent in idolatry and apostasy. You would be forced to admit that for most of Christian history, there was no Christianity. Christianity cannot be true if it completely fell into apostasy and had to be restored.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Melodist on August 06, 2010, 12:40:37 AM
You are in a cycle, not me. You ignore my arguments, keep repeating your own. Have fun, enjoy yourself.

We both are. You have made your argument - God doesn't want images of Himself. I have made mine - that was because He never revealed Himself in a form that could be imaged, which is done in Christ. Neither one of us plans on changing.

Quote
You don't give me a reason to debate/dialogue/compare ideas, because you refuse to.

We have. We both stated and compared our positions and have reached our conclusions.

Quote
If someone treated you, as you do me, you would be angry....

I'm not, I consider it all joy.

I apologize if you feel I have unfairly mistreated you.

Better than an apology would be a dialogue.

If you disagree with my statements, prove me wrong, that's better than telling me what you believe...that isn't dialogue, its not debate, its a tirade.

I give everyone great latitude...the discipline of NOT making claims, but actually treating an argument, is hard...takes time.

Most folks think its fine "you say your piece, I say mine". They are satisfied, but then the reasons for belief remain hidden.

I like discussing why people believe what they do...its the only way to discover is one is right or wrong.

You want  quote where God says "you can make an image when you see a form". God does not fully reveal Himself in the law. An image is not revealed under the law. Under the law, God never intended to reveal Himself in a form that can be imaged. Heb 10:1 says "For the law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things". That is why God never says in the law "you can make an image when...". This is done in Christ who fulfills the law. The invisible became visible. You refer to icons as "idols", but as I pointed out earlier, "idols" refer to false Gods. An icon of Christ images the person of Christ, who is our true God. I don't know where to find what you're looking for, but that doesn't make your assertions correct. The prohibition was made on account of the fact that they saw no form, and that has changed. We have something that they did not.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: SolEX01 on August 06, 2010, 01:28:27 AM
Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.

Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person. Context proves that, it speaks of the Icon creating all things, that was before He was incarnate.

You have not convinced me of anything just as the others have not convinced you of anything.

You're doing a poor job in trying to proselytize us to Mormonism.  Your arguments against the worship of graven images also exist at the website below:

The LDS Daily WOOL Archive - "No Graven Images" (http://www.molalla.net/members/sbirk/nogravenimages.shtml)

Moreover, unlike your detestable images, Christ is Person, who functions in the divine economy as "the face of God," that "side" of infinite God that condescends to enter the realm of the finite, to reveal God:

Reveal God to whom - Joseph Smith, the modern day St. Constantine for the Mormon faith?   ???

Congratulations, that took the prize for the most inept smear I have ever experienced.

What smear - Joseph Smith is a Prophet to the Mormons.  Why not come clean about who you are since you know who we are....   :)

No doubt you have realized the endless possibilities: "Alfred Persson prays, Muslims pray, he is Muslim!"; "Alfred Persson showers, Hitler showered, He is a Nazi"

I can't wait to see what I am guilty next.

try ... obfuscation....  I see a lot of Mormon missionaries in public libraries and they don't waste their time talking to me.  Sounds to me like you were the one who drew the short straw to proselytize on this board.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: SolEX01 on August 06, 2010, 01:30:53 AM
BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?

Where in Scripture does God say He wants us to follow the Scriptures ALONE?

You are changing the subject, fact is God NEVER says "image me please." Rather He very emphatically forbids the practice.

Iconophiles follow their own desires, not those of God, when they image Jesus.

I've seen images of Christ along with scenes from the Bible inside the Mormon Temple Visitor's Center in Washington, DC.  They are artwork, not "graven images" that you've berated us with for over 200 posts now.  What desires did these "artists" follow when they imaged Jesus?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: SolEX01 on August 06, 2010, 01:41:54 AM
SolEX01, for once I do have to agree with Alfred.  Your attempt to connect him to Mormonism is one of the lamest, most illogical connections I've ever seen anyone make.  

Alfred hasn't told us what he really believes.

Seeing all the absurd interpretations of Scripture I've seen Alfred submit to this thread, that's saying something.  It does NOT follow that just because Alfred says, "X," and the Mormons also say, "X," that Alfred is a Mormon.  

OK, I accept that Alfred can be an iconoclast without being a Mormon.  :)

If you're going to try to refute Alfred Persson on this debate, you might try something more coherent than that.

He started comparing himself to Muslims and Nazis ... to me, that was coherent enough since (1) if he was Muslim, he would cite the Koran and (2) if he cited from the Book of Mormon, that would give him away and (3) if he were a JW, he would use Jehovah rather than God....   :angel:
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 02:02:31 AM
Alfred,

I could see the change of your argument.

Since God did order the construction of graven images you have started to reply that God never asked an image of Himself.

I would like you to address though the other argument I made.

The prohibition in the commandment, unlike what you're saying, is not that we are forbidden to create images of the Lord God. The prohibition is towards *any* image of anything above or below heaven.

So if God prohibits the creation of graven images (He does not say veneration. He says creation.) *and* at the same time He ordered the creation of graven images in the temple, we only have 3 options:


1) God is a liar and in contradiction;

2) There are more than one God in the Bible, one who tells us not to make images and another that tells us to;

3) The words in the commandment are not in the absolute, restrict sense.

Which is your option?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 03:35:32 AM
SolEX01, for once I do have to agree with Alfred.  Your attempt to connect him to Mormonism is one of the lamest, most illogical connections I've ever seen anyone make.  

Alfred hasn't told us what he really believes.

Seeing all the absurd interpretations of Scripture I've seen Alfred submit to this thread, that's saying something.  It does NOT follow that just because Alfred says, "X," and the Mormons also say, "X," that Alfred is a Mormon.  

OK, I accept that Alfred can be an iconoclast without being a Mormon.  :)

If you're going to try to refute Alfred Persson on this debate, you might try something more coherent than that.

He started comparing himself to Muslims and Nazis ... to me, that was coherent enough since (1) if he was Muslim, he would cite the Koran and (2) if he cited from the Book of Mormon, that would give him away and (3) if he were a JW, he would use Jehovah rather than God....   :angel:
Why even assume he's more than he says he is?  Don't you think your attempts to paint him according to a particularly restrictive image border on the ad hominem, since you're trying to discredit his arguments by bringing up irrelevant questions of his personal religious background?  Focus on the arguments he's put forward, and stop with the speculation into what he has not revealed of himself.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 03:45:21 AM
BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?

Where in Scripture does God say He wants us to follow the Scriptures ALONE?

You are changing the subject,
No, just attacking the sola scriptura foundation of your arguments...

fact is God NEVER says "image me please."
If you limit yourself to believing that God can speak only through the Bible, then maybe you have a case for saying that God NEVER said, "image me please."  However, you need to first convince us that God can speak only through the Bible and that we are fools to believe that He spoke fully and most clearly through Jesus Christ and continues to speak through the Church.

Rather He very emphatically forbids the practice.
Yes, He forbade the practice of creating images from our own imagination, but He actually commanded us to make images of those things which He had revealed to us.

Iconophiles follow their own desires, not those of God, when they image Jesus.
Another one of your judgments of motive that you have yet to prove.  Not a valid argument to back up any of your claims.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 07:55:21 AM

Yes, He forbade the practice of creating images from our own imagination, but He actually commanded us to make images of those things which He had revealed to us.

Iconophiles follow their own desires, not those of God, when they image Jesus.

Another one of your judgments of motive that you have yet to prove.  Not a valid argument to back up any of your claims.

It is irrelevant God commands images be made of cherubim etc. He never commands images be made of Himself.

Iconophiles cannot produce one instance of God wanting to be imaged, Bible readers can find Him forbidding it in the strongest terms.

John of Damascus' gave his reasons for imaging God, "man's need":

In the same way, a man who wished to [11] build a house would first make and think out a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Denis) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind, which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images. (Rom. 1.20)-Part I

The fourth kind of image are the figures and types set forth by Scripture of invisible and immaterial things in bodily form, for a clearer apprehension of God and the angels, [96] through our incapacity of perceiving immaterial things unless clothed in analogical material form, as Dionysius the Areopagite says, a man skilled in divine things. Anyone would say that our incapacity for reaching the contemplation of intellectual things, and our need of familiar and cognate mediums, make it necessary that immaterial things should be clothed in form and shape. If, then, holy Scripture adapts itself to us in seeking to elevate us above sense, does it not make images of what it clothes in our own medium, and bring within our reach that which we desire but are unable to see? The spiritual* writer, Gregory, says that the mind striving to banish corporeal images reduces itself to incapability. But from the creation of the world the invisible things of God are made clear by the visible creation.Part III



When one asks, Does God want to be imaged, the answer is "no, never does God command, imply or hint 'image me.'"

God commands no images explaining He is jealous.

John of Damascus limits the reason for God's jealousy to idolatry with other gods (Ex 34:14), but GOD says He is jealous for other reasons also, that He wants exclusive devotion, He refuses to share glory even with an image:


 23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
 24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
 (Deu 4:15-24 KJV)


 4 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:
 5 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;
 (Exo 20:4-5 KJV)


Notice how other gods and images are listed separately:

 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
 8 Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth:
 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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, (Deu 5:7-9 KJV)

The same is said differently here:

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isa 42:8 KJV)[/b]

Iconophiles define the worship they give to images as dulia, not latria. BUT that is irrelevant as God wants it all, exclusive devotion, ZERO % of praise to the image regardless how it is defined, that's what "exclusive devotion" means.






Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: recent convert on August 06, 2010, 08:21:25 AM
So if in my own mind I see the Holy Spirit descending as a dove is this also idolatry?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 08:26:29 AM

Yes, He forbade the practice of creating images from our own imagination, but He actually commanded us to make images of those things which He had revealed to us.

Iconophiles follow their own desires, not those of God, when they image Jesus.

Another one of your judgments of motive that you have yet to prove.  Not a valid argument to back up any of your claims.

It is irrelevant God commands images be made of cherubim etc. He never commands images be made of Himself.

Iconophiles cannot produce one instance of God wanting to be imaged, Bible readers can find Him forbidding it in the strongest terms.
But then, you're still arguing from the principle of sola scriptura.  Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation.  I'll give you a hint: You won't find sola scriptura in the Scriptures.  In fact, as others have pointed out here in this debate, sola scriptura actually contradicts the Scriptures.

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 08:46:12 AM
Alfred,

I could see the change of your argument.

Since God did order the construction of graven images you have started to reply that God never asked an image of Himself.

I would like you to address though the other argument I made.

The prohibition in the commandment, unlike what you're saying, is not that we are forbidden to create images of the Lord God. The prohibition is towards *any* image of anything above or below heaven.

So if God prohibits the creation of graven images (He does not say veneration. He says creation.) *and* at the same time He ordered the creation of graven images in the temple, we only have 3 options:


1) God is a liar and in contradiction;

2) There are more than one God in the Bible, one who tells us not to make images and another that tells us to;

3) The words in the commandment are not in the absolute, restrict sense.

Which is your option?

False dilemma, God gave multiple reasons for forbidding images of Himself, which could be subsumed under the heading "God requires exclusive devotion because He is jealous."

Other gods incites God's jealousy, but so do images sharing service, praise and glory.

In other words:

God commands no images explaining He is jealous.

John of Damascus limits the reason for God's jealousy to idolatry with other gods (Ex 34:14), but GOD says He is jealous for other reasons, name He wants exclusive devotion, He refuses to share the worshippers service, praise or His glory with an image:[/b]

 23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
 24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
 (Deu 4:15-24 KJV)


 4 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:
 5 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;
 (Exo 20:4-5 KJV)


Notice how other gods and images are listed separately:

 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
 8 Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth:
 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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, (Deu 5:7-9 KJV)

The same is said differently here:

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isa 42:8 KJV)[/b]

Iconophiles define the worship they give to images as dulia, not latria. BUT that is irrelevant as God wants it all, exclusive devotion, ZERO % of praise to the image regardless how it is defined, that's what "exclusive devotion" means.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 09:33:10 AM
Alfred,

very long post to only reinforce the first element of my sylogism. Here it is again:

1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 06, 2010, 09:42:27 AM
Another instance of a commanded image comes in the making of the copper serpent in the book of Numbers by Moses.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 09:56:42 AM
Then you are left with one option:

All images of Christ must be condemned, whether or not veneration is offered to said image.  It's the only way to be true to the principles you proclaim.
.

Straw man.

Only images that are venerated have no scriptural warrant...God authorized images for the temple, but these were never venerated.

That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

Changed your mind?


Quote
God NEVER says "image me", never. He does say "don't image me", often.


Name a single instance after the birth of Christ, the icon of the invisible God-or so the Apostles taught.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 09:59:54 AM
Another instance of a commanded image comes in the making of the copper serpent in the book of Numbers by Moses.

Which had healing powers that worked when people looked at it. Certainly with no veneration whatsoever. :) And, oh that iconophile on St. John 3:14,15 Who said so blasphemously:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

That the serpent was an image of Jesus on the Cross! The audacity! Is outrage!
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 10:05:53 AM
BUT where in scripture does God say He wants to be imaged?

Where in Scripture does God say He wants us to follow the Scriptures ALONE?

You are changing the subject, fact is God NEVER says "image me please." Rather He very emphatically forbids the practice.

Iconophiles follow their own desires, not those of God, when they image Jesus.
Jesus is God.

Luke 24:36Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 11:01:15 AM
So is depicting the cross also idolatry?

Of course not, neither is making any of the images God commanded be made.

God forbade any manner of icon of Himself, as Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, it follows icons of Him are forbidden.

Pictures, statues, ect, of other things, of things that are not worshiped, are ok.



That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 11:07:59 AM
Alfred,

I could see the change of your argument.

Since God did order the construction of graven images you have started to reply that God never asked an image of Himself.

I would like you to address though the other argument I made.

The prohibition in the commandment, unlike what you're saying, is not that we are forbidden to create images of the Lord God. The prohibition is towards *any* image of anything above or below heaven.

So if God prohibits the creation of graven images (He does not say veneration. He says creation.) *and* at the same time He ordered the creation of graven images in the temple, we only have 3 options:


1) God is a liar and in contradiction;

2) There are more than one God in the Bible, one who tells us not to make images and another that tells us to;

3) The words in the commandment are not in the absolute, restrict sense.

Which is your option?

False dilemma, God gave multiple reasons for forbidding images of Himself, which could be subsumed under the heading "God requires exclusive devotion because He is jealous."

Other gods incites God's jealousy, but so do images sharing service, praise and glory.

So, what does Perssonism teach about devotions to the saints (intercessory prayer, saints day/commemoration, etc....)?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 06, 2010, 11:13:55 AM
Isa,

You may want to provide a list of your posts (and maybe the posts of others) that Mr. Persson has not as yet responded to. I think it would be useful for him, so he could stop ignoring them.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: SolEX01 on August 06, 2010, 11:40:33 AM
Why even assume he's more than he says he is?  Don't you think your attempts to paint him according to a particularly restrictive image border on the ad hominem, since you're trying to discredit his arguments by bringing up irrelevant questions of his personal religious background? 

If his personal religious background is the driving force for this thread along with his "self-professed" goal to proselytize on this board, I can challenge those assertions without the ad hominem.  He has not said, "I'm not a Mormon."

Focus on the arguments he's put forward, and stop with the speculation into what he has not revealed of himself.

I have focused on his arguments; I'm waiting to hear what he has to say about the artists who painted images of Jesus at the Mormon Temple Visitor's Center.   :)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: recent convert on August 06, 2010, 11:46:41 AM
Well all I know is that the cross can somehow be depicted cause he said so & I have no answer as to whether it is ok to perceive the Holy Spirit depicted as a dove or even depict it. I may not be the brightest bulb around but I still have a Berean tendency as to why I must alter my faith according to our preacher's teachings here on graven images.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 12:30:02 PM
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jer 2:13 KJV)

(http://www.comeandseeicons.com/bvm/inp116.jpg)
Quote
The Life-Giving Fountain

Rejoice, Spring of Unceasing Joyfullness; for saving, you impart healings unto all the faithful!

This icon came about because of events at a healing spring in a grove of trees near the Golden Gate of Constantinople. It had fallen into neglect and was overgrown and covered with scum. In the year 450 a soldier encountered a thirsty blind man who was lost. He told the man to wait there while he went to look for water. Then he heard a voice, which called him "Emperor Leo", tell him he did not need to look for water, because it was right there in that grove. The voice told him there was water for the blind man's thirst and that the scum would heal his eyes. He was also instructed to build a temple on that spot for people to come to for healing. Leo obeyed. The blind man was healed. Seven years later, Leo became Emperor and had a church erected on that spot, naming it "The Life-Giving Fountain". So in the icon, we see the blind man receiving healing and Emperor Leo. Mary and her Child are in the chalice from which flow the healing waters. The Angels are holding banners with the song above on them.
http://www.comeandseeicons.com/bvm/inp116.htm
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Panagia_the_Life_Giving_Spring

As the Gospel says, "Come and See." He calls in His last words: "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire,...and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

"24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. 25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? 28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. 29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. 34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."

Those who walk in the way of the Pharisees, claiming to be Moses' disciples, not knowing whence Christ is or "I Am," have been warned.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 12:55:53 PM
Isa,

You may want to provide a list of your posts (and maybe the posts of others) that Mr. Persson has not as yet responded to. I think it would be useful for him, so he could stop ignoring them.

Don't bother, I survey all posts, those that blather about me, my faith, my education, my country, my shoes, I ignore.

Those who accuse me of belonging to various cults, like Mormonism, I ignore.

Those dispatching their icons to slay me, I ignore.

Those that evade the issue by changing the subject, I ignore.

Only those actually responding to things I said, I'll answer.

Those who preface their "big point" with reams of smear and ad hominem, might not get a reply. I don't read more than a paragraph or two of ad ahominem...and might miss your "big chance to score!"

So put your point first, and then you can foam at the mouth and throw up much dust after.

Then I probably will answer the point, and ignore the rest.

So make you point first, then you can post your icons. I don't bother reading what is beneath them.

So no list, I'll ignore it.


But in one respect these bring joy:

 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
 23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 KJV)

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 01:12:24 PM
Isa,

You may want to provide a list of your posts (and maybe the posts of others) that Mr. Persson has not as yet responded to. I think it would be useful for him, so he could stop ignoring them.
I'm not sure I'm up for so tedious a task right now, there being so many.  Lord willing, maybe later. Btw, the string of posts started here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=460320;topic=29148.135;sesc=fffcbc099c68a161ff4e3689dcc06cda
resulted form me cutting the meat of one post into bite sizes.  Evidently you can't rush someone, who isn't ready for solids, off of the milk.

But for now, I'd be satisfied if he would address a piece of the argument, the clear teaching of the Apostles on the subject:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
He is the icon of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation [i.e. including both male and female, all the beasts on the earth, all winged fowel that flieth in the air, all things that creepeth on the ground, all fish in the waters beneath the earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven:any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, as the Apostle makes clear:]

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
For in Him were all things created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by Him and for Him

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness [of Godhead] to dwell in Him.

So it was God the Father's good pleasure that He imaged in the Incarnation of the Son. "He who sees Me sees the Father."

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 01:16:46 PM
Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 02:20:51 PM
Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.

That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: recent convert on August 06, 2010, 02:37:07 PM
Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.

How do you know precisely what Christ commanded in your micromanaged phariseeism? The essentials of worship are clearly maintained by liturgy & you claim to know that one of its aspects is not even though the icons are in accordance to how  Christ saved our fallen nature by taking on humanity. What is your take on fasting since Christ said when you fast but it is not recorded in the Bible as what days to fast but the 1st c. Didache notes these days in accordance with the Lord preached re fasting. Should I trust what you would say as opposed to the primary & secondary historical sources? Where is the tradition of men here? Should we not just be as skeptical to your now broken record recitation of the law outside its time of covenant? Ever heard of Christian liberty  per Galatians 5:1-6? Perhaps it is "you have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 02:40:44 PM
Isa,

You may want to provide a list of your posts (and maybe the posts of others) that Mr. Persson has not as yet responded to. I think it would be useful for him, so he could stop ignoring them.

Don't bother, I survey all posts, those that blather about me, my faith, my education, my country, my shoes, I ignore.

Haven't asked about your shoes, don't know your country, seen no evidence of your education.

Theistgal says if you are googled, you'll come up. These posts will come up.  The reader can judge whether you are being maligned, or you have been silenced, and whether your ban, if that comes, being silencing of a prophet or turning off the spigot to your martyr complex.

Is heresy a faith?

Those who accuse me of belonging to various cults, like Mormonism, I ignore.

I only asked because of what you said:
Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.
Are you a fellow Mormon?
and the fact that since you reject the authority of the Apostles and follow the teaching of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes without acknowledgement, you are left with the Joseph Smith Jr. option of claiming your own authority:
Since you reject those whom Christ sent, you reject Him Who sent them.  You cite no rabbis, so you have no authority either according to those who also saw Christ but rejected Him.  That leaves the Joseph Smith Jr. option: What's your accused Gospel? 'cuz it's sure different from the one the Apostles gave us.
That's only two posts out of many.

Those dispatching their icons to slay me, I ignore.

Quote
If the image of the king is the king, the image of Christ is Christ, and the image of a saint the saint, and if power is not divided nor glory distributed, honouring the image becomes honouring the one who is set forth in image. Devils have feared the saints, and have fled from their shadow. The shadow is an image, and I make an image that I may scare demons.-St. John of Damscus
http://books.google.com/books?id=ibnUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA35&dq=John+damascus+scare+demons&hl=en&ei=ikRcTO2eBoL-8Aa3utS5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Those that evade the issue by changing the subject, I ignore.

You mean the ones that point out that you haven't addressed St. John?

Only those actually responding to things I said, I'll answer.

Mantras do not count as a response. I include the nesstled quotes in all my responses to what you said.

Those who preface their "big point" with reams of smear and ad hominem, might not get a reply. I don't read more than a paragraph or two of ad ahominem...and might miss your "big chance to score!"

 ::) (does that count as an icon?).

So put your point first, and then you can foam at the mouth and throw up much dust after.

I'm just shaking off the very dust from my feet for a testimony.

"He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent Me." Luke 10:16

Then I probably will answer the point, and ignore the rest.

Posting a mantra as an "answer" is ignoring it, or ignorance.

So make you point first, then you can post your icons. I don't bother reading what is beneath them.

(Acts 22:2)(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

3I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. 4And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. 5As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11And being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus when I could not see for the glory of that light.

If you don't grasp the hand of the Apostolic Faith extended to you, putting hands on thee that thou mightest receive thy sight and fall from thine eyes as it had been scales, that's your choice.

So no list, I'll ignore it.

LOL. My, aren't we self absorbed.
This may be a silly question, but here goes:  if no one responds to the OP's satisfaction, what's the worst that could happen?

In other words, why bother with this at all?  He doesn't really seem interested in a serious discussion.

If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet.  But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate.  He seems to have run out of his repetoire.

Speaking of icons, I've posted a picture that sums up the purpose of Mr. Persson's posts:
http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/mis.jpg
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700
Thanks for responding to the argument.
you might return the favor:
You have a whole thread here for your views.

otherwise, we must apply the principle of qui tacet consentit, and accept your silence as an admission of defeat.
So anyone can read your silence to the refutation of your views, and draw the appropriate conclusion.

Quote
But in one respect these bring joy:

 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
 23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 KJV)

21Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but He that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity. (Mat. 7:21-23 KJV)

It is the will of the Father and His good pleasure that He be imaged in the Incarnation of the Son, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person. "He who sees Me sees the Father."
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 02:49:18 PM
Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 02:55:41 PM
Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.

That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

Changed argument is changed... sorry the urge was too strong...
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 03:07:23 PM
Why even assume he's more than he says he is?  Don't you think your attempts to paint him according to a particularly restrictive image border on the ad hominem, since you're trying to discredit his arguments by bringing up irrelevant questions of his personal religious background?  

If his personal religious background is the driving force for this thread along with his "self-professed" goal to proselytize on this board, I can challenge those assertions without the ad hominem.  He has not said, "I'm not a Mormon."
Neither has he said that he is a Mormon nor said anything that any person with even the least command of basic logic would read as indicating that he's a Mormon, so I don't see how accusing him of being a Mormon does anything to address his claims.  Alfred has admitted in his profile that he's a Protestant and is arguing a thesis one would expect a Protestant to argue; that should be enough for you.  Asserting anything more than that is irrelevant slander.

Focus on the arguments he's put forward, and stop with the speculation into what he has not revealed of himself.

I have focused on his arguments;
No, you haven't.  You've addressed a red herring instead.

I'm waiting to hear what he has to say about the artists who painted images of Jesus at the Mormon Temple Visitor's Center.   :)
Why does it matter?  And why do you insist on derailing this thread?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 03:09:48 PM
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.


I hadn't seen this one.

So rephrasing:

Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so? And if yes, what is your actual understanding of the passage? That God forbids the making of any image or just images of Him?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 03:22:47 PM
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.


I hadn't seen this one.

So rephrasing:

Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so? And if yes, what is your actual understanding of the passage? That God forbids the making of any image or just images of Him?

First thing to do, when debunking a position, is to learn the position. You failed to do that, you assumed what I believe, and you assumed incorrectly.

Your dilemma was false because one or more premises are inconsistent with fact.

1)God didn't forbid them making of all images, He forbade making any of Him.
2)Veneration is not a NECESSARY property of an image, in other words, God can ordain the making of an image commanding NOTHING about veneration. Your premise requires an image, if it is made, is worshiped either with dulia or latria. This third option is correct, no worship at all with the images God set up.


I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

 



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 03:26:26 PM
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.


I hadn't seen this one.

So rephrasing:

Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so? And if yes, what is your actual understanding of the passage? That God forbids the making of any image or just images of Him?

First thing to do, when debunking a position, is to learn the position. You failed to do that, you assumed what I believe, and you assumed incorrectly.

Your dilemma was false because more than one premise is wrong.

1)God didn't forbid them making of all images, He forbade making any of Him.
2)Veneration is not a NECESSARY property of an image, in other words, God can ordain the making of an image commanding NOTHING about veneration. Your premise requires an image, if it is made, is worshiped either with dulia or latria. This third option is correct, no worship at all with the images God set up.


I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

 





Yet you have said, and it has been shown through many reposts and quoting that, according to you God did forbid the making of all images. Please do not change your argument mid debate, it shows that you think the rest of us too slow to catch such a move.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 03:31:13 PM

First thing to do, when debunking a position, is to learn the position. You failed to do that, you assumed what I believe, and you assumed incorrectly.

Your dilemma was false because one or more premises are inconsistent with fact.

1)God didn't forbid them making of all images, He forbade making any of Him.
2)Veneration is not a NECESSARY property of an image, in other words, God can ordain the making of an image commanding NOTHING about veneration. Your premise requires an image, if it is made, is worshiped either with dulia or latria. This third option is correct, no worship at all with the images God set up.


I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

I still do not grasp what your understanding of Deut. 4:12ff is. Do you understand that in this passage God forbids all images or just images of Him? Please, note that previously you said that it forbids all images. More recently you've been saying it prohibits only images of Him. What is your understanding?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 03:36:02 PM
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.


I hadn't seen this one.

So rephrasing:

Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so? And if yes, what is your actual understanding of the passage? That God forbids the making of any image or just images of Him?

First thing to do, when debunking a position, is to learn the position. You failed to do that, you assumed what I believe, and you assumed incorrectly.

Your dilemma was false because more than one premise is wrong.

1)God didn't forbid them making of all images, He forbade making any of Him.
2)Veneration is not a NECESSARY property of an image, in other words, God can ordain the making of an image commanding NOTHING about veneration. Your premise requires an image, if it is made, is worshiped either with dulia or latria. This third option is correct, no worship at all with the images God set up.


I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

 





Yet you have said, and it has been shown through many reposts and quoting that, according to you God did forbid the making of all images. Please do not change your argument mid debate, it shows that you think the rest of us too slow to catch such a move.

You misread it, "all images of Him." I've repeatedly said God ordained the making of images, cherubim etc...

But He forbade every kind of icon of Himself.

use your search crl f and see, look for cherubim.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 03:36:45 PM
I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.
Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 03:53:00 PM
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.


I hadn't seen this one.

So rephrasing:

Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so? And if yes, what is your actual understanding of the passage? That God forbids the making of any image or just images of Him?

First thing to do, when debunking a position, is to learn the position. You failed to do that, you assumed what I believe, and you assumed incorrectly.

Your dilemma was false because more than one premise is wrong.

1)God didn't forbid them making of all images, He forbade making any of Him.
2)Veneration is not a NECESSARY property of an image, in other words, God can ordain the making of an image commanding NOTHING about veneration. Your premise requires an image, if it is made, is worshiped either with dulia or latria. This third option is correct, no worship at all with the images God set up.


I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

 





Yet you have said, and it has been shown through many reposts and quoting that, according to you God did forbid the making of all images. Please do not change your argument mid debate, it shows that you think the rest of us too slow to catch such a move.

You misread it, "all images of Him." I've repeatedly said God ordained the making of images, cherubim etc...

But He forbade every kind of icon of Himself.

use your search crl f and see, look for cherubim.

Why should I do that when I can just look at the top of the quotes to see what you have said.
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

There it is again. It was only in later posts when you changed your argument to allow for cherubim and other things. You have been weighed and measured and found wanting.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 03:53:41 PM
False dilemma, God gave multiple reasons for forbidding images of Himself, which could be subsumed under the heading "God requires exclusive devotion because He is jealous."

Other gods incites God's jealousy, but so do images sharing service, praise and glory.

In other words:

God commands no images explaining He is jealous.

John of Damascus limits the reason for God's jealousy to idolatry with other gods (Ex 34:14), but GOD says He is jealous for other reasons, name He wants exclusive devotion, He refuses to share the worshippers service, praise or His glory with an image:[/b]

 23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
 24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
 (Deu 4:15-24 KJV)

He says likeness of any thing, not "likeness of Mysef/Ourself."

Quote
4 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:
 5 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;
 (Exo 20:4-5 KJV)

Again, likeness of any thing, not "likeness of Myself/Ourself."

Quote
Notice how other gods and images are listed separately:

 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
 8 Thou shalt not make 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 waters beneath the earth:
 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto 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, (Deu 5:7-9 KJV)

So this is OK?
(http://www.bibleorigins.net/MnevisBullPharaoh.jpg)
because it's not another god, just a beast on the earth.

Quote
The same is said differently here:

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isa 42:8 KJV)[/b]

Iconophiles define the worship they give to images as dulia, not latria. BUT that is irrelevant as God wants it all, exclusive devotion, ZERO % of praise to the image regardless how it is defined, that's what "exclusive devotion" means.

I remember an "All in the Family" episode "Black is the Color of My True Love's Wig"
Quote
Gloria buys a black wig and demonstrates it to Mike. He likes it so much that he gets sexually aroused. But what happens when she takes off the wig, now that Mike has seen her wearing it? With Gloria saying that she refuses to be the other woman in her own marriage, will this lead to Mike having to sleep on the couch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_All_in_the_Family_episodes
Saying she refuses to be the other woman in her own marriage (although she admits Mike's point: she wore the wig to be attractive to him and that he is attracted to a dress when she wears it and not when he sees it on another worman), she says "You want me to wear the wig so that way you can have an affair without cheating on your wife. What a sicko!" to which Mike replies "Sick?! I'll tell you what is sick! You're jealous of your own wig!"

So, you think that God is jealous of His own image?

St. John demonstrates otherwise:
Quote
Where do you find in the Old Testament or in the Gospel the Trinity, or consubstantiality, or one Godhead, or three persons,* or the one substance of Christ, or His two natures, expressed in so many words ? Still, as they are contained in what Scripture does say, and defined by the holy fathers, we receive them and anathematise those who do not. I prove to you that in the old law God commanded images to be made, first of all the tabernacle and everything in it. Then in the gospel our Lord Himself said to those who asked Him, tempting, whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, ' Bring me a coin, and they showed Him a penny. And He asked them whose likeness it was, and they said to Him, Caesar's; and He said, ' Give to Ceesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's.' As the coin bears the likeness of Caesar, it is his, and you should give it to Caesar. So the image bears the likeness of Christ, and you should give it Him, for it is His.

If men worship kings subject to corruption, who are often bad and impious, and those ruling or deputed' in their name, as the holy apostle says, ' Be subject to princes and powers,' and again, ' Give to all their due, to one honour, to another fear,' and our Lord, ' Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's,' how much more should we worship the King of Kings? He alone is God by nature.

The image of the king is also called the king, and there are not two kings in consequence. Neither is power divided, nor is glory distributed. Just as the reigning power over us is one, so is our homage one, not many, and the honour given to the image reaches back to the original. What the image is in the one case as a representation, that the Son is by His humanity, and as in art likeness is according to form, so in the divine and incommensurable nature union is effected in the indwelling Godhead.

Commentary.—If the image of the king is the king, the image of Christ is Christ, and the image of a saint the saint, and if power is not divided nor glory distributed, honouring the image becomes honouring the one who is set forth in image.

If, in common parlance, the king's image is called the king, and ,the honour shown to the image redounds to' the original, as holy Basil says, why should the image not be honoured and worshipped, not as God, but as the image of God Incarnate?

He who truly loves a friend or the king, and especially his benefactor, if he sees that benefactor's son, or his staff, or his chair, or his crown, or his house, or his servant, he holds them fast in his embrace, and if he honours his benefactor the king, how much more God.

If you despise the royal garment, do you not despise the king himself? Do you not see that if you despise the image of the king, you despise the original ? Do you not know that if a man shows contempt for an image of wood or a statue of metal, he is not judged as if he had vented himself on lifeless matter, but as showing contempt for the king ? Dishonour shown to an image of the king is dishonour shown to the king.

So we are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but not to render unto God that which is God's, because God is jealous of His Own glory?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 03:56:22 PM
I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.
Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing about.

The fact God never ordained the making of images of Himself, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 03:58:33 PM
I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.
Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing for.

The fact God never ordained the making of images, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.

First he presumes to teach us the Bible - which he does not do very well (my own opinion), and now he presumes to teach us to debate - which he does not do very well either (again, my own opinion).
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 04:03:41 PM
You misread it, "all images of Him." I've repeatedly said God ordained the making of images, cherubim etc...

But He forbade every kind of icon of Himself.

use your search crl f and see, look for cherubim.

Why should I do that when I can just look at the top of the quotes to see what you have said.
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

There it is again. It was only in later posts when you changed your argument to allow for cherubim and other things. You have been weighed and measured and found wanting.

(http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/Pictures/Standard%20Bible%20Story%20Readers,%20Book%20Four/images/scan0034.jpg)

I think that is Holy Daniel in the middle, saying "that's idolatry! An image of God's hand.  Deut. 4:15ff forbade that! So that can't be a message from God: keep on defiling the temple implements."
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 04:05:05 PM
You misread it, "all images of Him." I've repeatedly said God ordained the making of images, cherubim etc...

But He forbade every kind of icon of Himself.

use your search crl f and see, look for cherubim.

Why should I do that when I can just look at the top of the quotes to see what you have said.
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

There it is again. It was only in later posts when you changed your argument to allow for cherubim and other things. You have been weighed and measured and found wanting.

(http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/Pictures/Standard%20Bible%20Story%20Readers,%20Book%20Four/images/scan0034.jpg)

I think that is Holy Daniel in the middle, saying "that's idolatry! An image of God's hand.  Deut. 4:15ff forbade that! So that can't be a message from God: keep on defiling the temple implements."

ROFL ;D
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 04:11:05 PM
I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.
Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing about.

The fact God never ordained the making of images of Himself, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.

But for now, I'd be satisfied if he would address a piece of the argument, the clear teaching of the Apostles on the subject:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
He is the icon of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation [i.e. including both male and female, all the beasts on the earth, all winged fowel that flieth in the air, all things that creepeth on the ground, all fish in the waters beneath the earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven:any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, as the Apostle makes clear:]

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
For in Him were all things created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by Him and for Him

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness [of Godhead] to dwell in Him.

It is the will of the Father and His good pleasure that He be imaged in the Incarnation of the Son, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person. "He who sees Me sees the Father."

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 04:16:25 PM
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.


I hadn't seen this one.

So rephrasing:

Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so? And if yes, what is your actual understanding of the passage? That God forbids the making of any image or just images of Him?

First thing to do, when debunking a position, is to learn the position. You failed to do that, you assumed what I believe, and you assumed incorrectly.

Your dilemma was false because more than one premise is wrong.

1)God didn't forbid them making of all images, He forbade making any of Him.
2)Veneration is not a NECESSARY property of an image, in other words, God can ordain the making of an image commanding NOTHING about veneration. Your premise requires an image, if it is made, is worshiped either with dulia or latria. This third option is correct, no worship at all with the images God set up.


I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

 





Yet you have said, and it has been shown through many reposts and quoting that, according to you God did forbid the making of all images. Please do not change your argument mid debate, it shows that you think the rest of us too slow to catch such a move.

You misread it, "all images of Him." I've repeatedly said God ordained the making of images, cherubim etc...

But He forbade every kind of icon of Himself.

use your search crl f and see, look for cherubim.

Why should I do that when I can just look at the top of the quotes to see what you have said.
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

There it is again. It was only in later posts when you changed your argument to allow for cherubim and other things. You have been weighed and measured and found wanting.

That statement is to be understood in the light of all my statements, including the opening arguments.

My opening post says:

Contrary to John of Damascus' citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):


I don't expect you to be fair, I trust God will reveal to His children, if they read this thread, who speaks truth, and who doesn't.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev 18:4 KJV)

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
 (Rev 3:20-22 KJV)


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fabio Leite on August 06, 2010, 04:20:44 PM
Alfred,

did God forbid the making of all images or of His images only?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 04:26:11 PM
Quote

That statement is to be understood in the light of all my statements, including the opening arguments.

My opening post says:

Contrary to John of Damascus' citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):


I don't expect you to be fair, I trust God will reveal to His children, if they read this thread, who speaks truth, and who doesn't.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev 18:4 KJV)

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
 (Rev 3:20-22 KJV)




We already know who speaks the truth, that is why none of us have been swayed by your thread. You see, the Orthodox Church has been steeped in truth for almost 2,000 years, it is easy for us to see what is not truth. If you deny this then you deny early Church and Christian history.

As an aside, I am a former protestant, recently chrismated; your faulty debating skills will not sway me. If you truly want to convince people that you know what you are talking about then do not say one thing and mean another, do not change your argument back and forth to fit the debate at hand. In other words, be plain in your speech whilst still conveying exactly what you mean.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 04:39:04 PM
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.


I hadn't seen this one.

So rephrasing:

Alfred,
1) God forbids the making of any kind of images; Here He does not differentiate if it's for dulia, latria or decoration; The prohibition is clear: don't make them.

2) Elsewhere God actually orders the making of images;

So the conclusion (3) has to be one of the following:

a) God is lying in either 1 or 2;

b) (1) and (2) are ordered by different Gods;

c) The order in (1) is not in absolute sense.

I ask again. What is your conclusion (3) from facts in (1) and (2)?



False dilemma, Deut 4:12ff et al forbid making images of Him only.


So you agree with (c) that those words are not absolute. And you draw the line on Deut. 4:12ff. Is that so? And if yes, what is your actual understanding of the passage? That God forbids the making of any image or just images of Him?

First thing to do, when debunking a position, is to learn the position. You failed to do that, you assumed what I believe, and you assumed incorrectly.

Your dilemma was false because more than one premise is wrong.

1)God didn't forbid them making of all images, He forbade making any of Him.
2)Veneration is not a NECESSARY property of an image, in other words, God can ordain the making of an image commanding NOTHING about veneration. Your premise requires an image, if it is made, is worshiped either with dulia or latria. This third option is correct, no worship at all with the images God set up.


I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

 





Yet you have said, and it has been shown through many reposts and quoting that, according to you God did forbid the making of all images. Please do not change your argument mid debate, it shows that you think the rest of us too slow to catch such a move.

You misread it, "all images of Him." I've repeatedly said God ordained the making of images, cherubim etc...

But He forbade every kind of icon of Himself.

use your search crl f and see, look for cherubim.

Just out of curiosity, can you cite for me Deuteronomy 4:16-18?  How about Exodus 20:4?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 05:26:28 PM
Why should I do that when I can just look at the top of the quotes to see what you have said.
That interpretation is impossible, Deut 4:15ff forbade every possible image made by the hand of man, plus what their hand could not make existing in the heavens.

There it is again. It was only in later posts when you changed your argument to allow for cherubim and other things. You have been weighed and measured and found wanting.

That statement is to be understood in the light of all my statements, including the opening arguments.

My opening post says:

Contrary to John of Damascus' citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):

Your opening post doesn't quote St. John's exegesis of De 4:15, which your title of this thread promises, but never delievers.  We have a thread on your own views, where I refuted them:
Since you refuse to address St. John's arguments,
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_U1mtafEPMC&pg=PA90&dq=John+of+Damascus+on+the+divine+images+4:15&hl=en&ei=65hXTM3QBIyJnQfpnM3YCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=mercy%20seat&f=false
but just assert your own teaching.....

This veneration was not acceptable to God as He later forbade both in Deuteronomy 16:21f

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.

The King of Glory hung from the tree of the Cross, and keep the Sabbath in the Garden Tomb.  "Tear down this Sanctuary, and in three days I will  raise it up."
So God forbade pillars?
I Kings 7:3And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. 14He was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.  15For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about. 16And he made two chapiters of molten brass, to set upon the tops of the pillars: the height of the one chapiter was five cubits, and the height of the other chapiter was five cubits: 17And nets of checker work, and wreaths of chain work, for the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; seven for the one chapiter, and seven for the other chapiter. 18And he made the pillars, and two rows round about upon the one network, to cover the chapiters that were upon the top, with pomegranates: and so did he for the other chapiter. 19And the chapiters that were upon the top of the pillars were of lily work in the porch, four cubits. 20And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates also above, over against the belly which was by the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows round about upon the other chapiter. 21And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz. 22And upon the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the pillars finished....40And Hiram made the lavers, and the shovels, and the basons. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he made king Solomon for the house of the LORD: 41The two pillars, and the two bowls of the chapiters that were on the top of the two pillars; and the two networks, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; 42And four hundred pomegranates for the two networks, even two rows of pomegranates for one network, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters that were upon the pillars; 43And the ten bases, and ten lavers on the bases; 8:11Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. 2And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. 3And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. 4And they brought up the ark of the LORD, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up. 5And king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. 6And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. 7For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above. 8And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen without: and there they are unto this day. 9There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. 10And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, 11So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD.
12Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.
13I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.
14And the king turned his face about, and blessed all the congregation of Israel: (and all the congregation of Israel stood;) 15And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which spake with his mouth unto David my father, and hath with his hand fulfilled it, saying, 16Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel. 17And it was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel. 18And the LORD said unto David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart. 19Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name. 20And the LORD hath performed his word that he spake, and I am risen up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built an house for the name of the LORD God of Israel. 21And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.

God doesn't seemed to have minded the pillars in the temple. David wrote a pslam (56 (57) "for a pillar inscription." He told Isaiah (19:19-20) In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them." As we know, St. Joseph delievered on the this promise. God revealed to Ezekiel (40-1) pillars in the vision of the temple.

Do you read this as a promise, or a threat?:
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God: and I will write upon him My new name." (Rev. 3:12)

Of course, He had already done that to James, John and Peter the pillars (Gal. 2:9) upon which our dogma rests.

And He will do the same for you, but you must repent, and confess He is LORD in public, before the eyes of angels and men.
I Timothy 3:14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Quote
I don't expect you to be fair, I trust God will reveal to His children, if they read this thread, who speaks truth, and who doesn't.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev 18:4 KJV)

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
 (Rev 3:20-22 KJV)
As the Gospel says, "Come and See." He calls in His last words: "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire,...and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."
Rev. 3:18

II Peter 3:15 Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 05:32:22 PM
Then you are left with one option:

All images of Christ must be condemned, whether or not veneration is offered to said image.  It's the only way to be true to the principles you proclaim.
.

Straw man.

Only images that are venerated have no scriptural warrant...God authorized images for the temple, but these were never venerated.

God NEVER says "image me", never. He does say "don't image me", often.



So, wait, God prohibits ALL images of Himself, and any rendering of Himself.  There is no "except" clause found anywhere in these prohibitions of images, as in "it is okay to make an image so long as you don't venerate it."  Really, we are left with only one of two choices, that is no straw man.  Either: it is okay to make an image of the Lord, or it is not.  If  we follow your strict, sola scriptura stance, then there is no imaging, of any sort allowed, regardless of the reason for making the image (Chick tract, Sunday school pamphlet, whatever).

Granted, you still have yet to answer exactly whether or not you believe these things are allowable instances of imaging (despite several questions by myself and other posters to this effect).

However, my submission was that it is impossible to believe:

a) that Christ is God

b) that images of Christ are allowable, only in instances where veneration do not occur,

because it is impossible not to respect (venerate) an image of Christ, believing He is God.  

What would your attitude be (a question also asked by other posters) toward someone who showed disrespect toward a picture of Christ?

If (to borrow from one Clive Staples Lewis) you were locked in a room before an image of Christ and told your only escape from that room was to spit upon, smear excrement on, or damage this image what would your reaction be?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 05:32:47 PM
Alfred,

did God forbid the making of all images or of His images only?

I will answer if you first answer me...

Where does God say He wants to be imaged?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: ialmisry on August 06, 2010, 05:37:02 PM
Alfred,

did God forbid the making of all images or of His images only?

I will answer if you first answer me...

Where does God say He wants to be imaged?
You have been answered already:
I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.
Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing about.

The fact God never ordained the making of images of Himself, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.

But for now, I'd be satisfied if he would address a piece of the argument, the clear teaching of the Apostles on the subject:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
He is the icon of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation [i.e. including both male and female, all the beasts on the earth, all winged fowel that flieth in the air, all things that creepeth on the ground, all fish in the waters beneath the earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven:any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, as the Apostle makes clear:]

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
For in Him were all things created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by Him and for Him

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness [of Godhead] to dwell in Him.

It is the will of the Father and His good pleasure that He be imaged in the Incarnation of the Son, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person. "He who sees Me sees the Father."

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 05:49:41 PM

I will answer if you first answer me...

Where does God say He wants to be imaged?
But for now, I'd be satisfied if he would address a piece of the argument, the clear teaching of the Apostles on the subject:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
He is the icon of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation [i.e. including both male and female, all the beasts on the earth, all winged fowel that flieth in the air, all things that creepeth on the ground, all fish in the waters beneath the earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven:any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, as the Apostle makes clear:]

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
For in Him were all things created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by Him and for Him

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness [of Godhead] to dwell in Him.

It is the will of the Father and His good pleasure that He be imaged in the Incarnation of the Son, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person. "He who sees Me sees the Father."



Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.

God repeatedly said no icons of any kind of Him, that includes your 2 dimensional icons.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 05:49:48 PM
I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.
Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing about.

The fact God never ordained the making of images of Himself, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.
Actually, no, I'm not changing the subject.  You simply refuse to notice how firmly your thesis is built on the premise of sola scriptura and that if you can't defend sola scriptura, your whole house of cards falls down in a big, ruinous heap.  BTW, you notice how many people here are charging you with evasion?  You might want to rethink your arguments here, since by your own definition of the rules of debate, you are losing.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 05:51:02 PM
Alfred,

did God forbid the making of all images or of His images only?

I will answer if you first answer me...

Where does God say He wants to be imaged?
You have been answered already:
I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.
Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing about.

The fact God never ordained the making of images of Himself, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.

But for now, I'd be satisfied if he would address a piece of the argument, the clear teaching of the Apostles on the subject:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
He is the icon of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation [i.e. including both male and female, all the beasts on the earth, all winged fowel that flieth in the air, all things that creepeth on the ground, all fish in the waters beneath the earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven:any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, as the Apostle makes clear:]

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
For in Him were all things created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by Him and for Him

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness [of Godhead] to dwell in Him.

It is the will of the Father and His good pleasure that He be imaged in the Incarnation of the Son, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person. "He who sees Me sees the Father."


And again:
Quote
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 05:54:04 PM
Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.
Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.


From Page 4 of Weston's A Rulebook for Arguments:

3. Start from Reliable Premises

No matter how well you argue from premises to conclusion, your conclusion will be weak if your premises are weak.


As long as you cannot prove the strength of your premise that God speaks ONLY through the Scriptures, you will never convince us of your conclusion that God never says, "Make images of Me."
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 06, 2010, 06:21:43 PM
The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 06:28:01 PM
Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.
Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Quote
Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Quote
Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

Quote
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10
Quote
9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.
There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18
Quote
15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.
There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9
Quote
1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,
There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Quote
Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.
Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!


Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Fr. George on August 06, 2010, 06:32:39 PM
Don't bother, I survey all posts, those that blather about me, my faith, my education, my country, my shoes, I ignore.

Of the above, only your faith would be relevant to a discussion on a topic of faith; the rest are non-sequitur.  However, just because someone makes a non-sequitur comment does not mean their whole post is off the point; you have handicapped yourself in the debate because of your inability to answer all the refutations made against you.  Since you claim to have read all the posts, and have not responded to the various refutations, the implicit statement is that you are unable to do so, and have conceded the point in those instances.

Taking that into consideration, there is no debate left to be had; you've conceded by silence to refutations that destroy your opposition to icons.  Good day!

Those who accuse me of belonging to various cults, like Mormonism, I ignore.

Wow, at least we agree that Mormonism is a cult.  I'm shocked.  I have to say, if you're making a Mormon argument against icons, the question is bound to come up.

Those dispatching their icons to slay me, I ignore.

If icons were used in the thread, it was to further the written argument around them.  Again, since you've ignored refutations of your point, in the course of debate you have conceded to them.  

Those that evade the issue by changing the subject, I ignore.

That sounds like a judgment call made by someone inexperienced in the realm of debate - you shouldn't be making that sort of mistake.  If you came to proselytize people to Christ, then you should tackle all the questions, because I assure you they're all related.

Only those actually responding to things I said, I'll answer.

They're all responding you you, good chap.  You've got two entire threads on the busiest English-language Orthodox Forum devoted to you and your argument against icons.

Those who preface their "big point" with reams of smear and ad hominem, might not get a reply. I don't read more than a paragraph or two of ad ahominem...and might miss your "big chance to score!"

There's no scoring with ad hominems.  If you find an ad hominem attack, you should click the "report to moderator" link in the lower-right corner of the post, and the user will be warned to cease and desist.

So put your point first, and then you can foam at the mouth and throw up much dust after.

Awfully condescending, aren't we?  The posts are all either refuting your arguments, or pointing out your flaws in debate.  You should be responding to each one.

Then I probably will answer the point, and ignore the rest.

Suit yourself - you've had a poor track record of ignoring points of great import, so I'm going to presume that the above statement is a reassurance that you will continue said poor record.

So make you point first, then you can post your icons. I don't bother reading what is beneath them.

So what you're saying is your quest to proselytize people to Christ is a lazy quest, as you won't be bothered with important stuff if it comes beneath a picture.  Right.  You should take your debate to ICQ or some Instant Messenger place, then.

So no list, I'll ignore it.

Too bad - you said you're here to proselytize to Christ; we are willing to offer you an entire list of arguments you cannot refute, and you won't bother reading them?

But in one respect these bring joy:

 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
 23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 KJV)

Your reward is only great if you are defending the Faith of the Apostles, the Faith of the Fathers... The Faith of the Orthodox, the Faith on which the Universe was founded.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 07:42:46 PM
And again:
Quote
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

AND it proves too much. If man's body is the image of God, then why commandments against us imaging it with God as its prototype"

So your own premises PROVES  God does not want US to image Him, even when we know precisely what His image is.



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 07:44:01 PM
And again:
Quote
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

BUT you still lack a text where God expresses His desire we image Him.




I believe you will find what you are looking for in my above post.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 07:51:24 PM
And again:
Quote
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

BUT you still lack a text where God expresses His desire we image Him.




I believe you will find what you are looking for in my above post.

No, I didn't. Your argument the "word of God" comes through the church contradicts apostolic tradition:

The "Word of God" does not come through the church's tongues, prophecy, supernatural knowledge, or living tradition. It came through the founding apostles:

 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
 (1Co 14:36-38 KJV)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 07:54:02 PM
And again:
Quote
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

BUT you still lack a text where God expresses His desire we image Him.




I believe you will find what you are looking for in my above post.

No, I didn't. Your argument the "word of God" comes through the church contradicts apostolic tradition:

The "Word of God" does not come through the church's tongues, prophecy, supernatural knowledge, or living tradition. It came through the apostles:

 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
 (1Co 14:36-38 KJV)

I believe you misread what I said, dear sir...
Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.
Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Quote
Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Quote
Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

Quote
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10
Quote
9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.
There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18
Quote
15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.
There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9
Quote
1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,
There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Quote
Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.
Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!




that ^ is what I said.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 08:03:07 PM
The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to any point; the few who came close I magnanimously chose to treat, but that was for generosity sake ...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 08:05:53 PM
The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to my precise point, the few I replied to were still somewhat off, but for apologetic sake, I responded...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...



You still have yet to respond to my point made (instead you mistook one of my post for somebody else's post). I forgive you that, men make mistakes. I have posted no evasion and have shown sola scriptura where God commanded man to make images of God.

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.
Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Quote
Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Quote
Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

Quote
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10
Quote
9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.
There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18
Quote
15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.
There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9
Quote
1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,
There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Quote
Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.
Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 08:10:20 PM
And again:
Quote
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

AND it proves too much. If man's body is the image of God, then why commandments against us imaging it with God as its prototype"

So your own premises PROVES  God does not want US to image Him, even when we know precisely what His image is.





And you still have yet to answer any questions put to you.

Before this debate can go anywhere we need to know your definitions, sir.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 06, 2010, 08:42:35 PM
The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to any point; the few who came close I magnanimously chose to treat, but that was for generosity sake ...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...


The Christian man can only boast truly of how much of a sinner he is and of the Cross of Jesus Christ.  To boast of oneself is arrogance.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Aindriú on August 06, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Pull chocks people. This is over.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 09:15:12 PM
The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to my precise point, the few I replied to were still somewhat off, but for apologetic sake, I responded...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...



You still have yet to respond to my point made (instead you mistook one of my post for somebody else's post). I forgive you that, men make mistakes. I have posted no evasion and have shown sola scriptura where God commanded man to make images of God.

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.
Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Quote
Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Quote
Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

Quote
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10
Quote
9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.
There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18
Quote
15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.
There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9
Quote
1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,
There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Quote
Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.
Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!




You failed to show the connection between the scriptures you cite, and God's command in scripture we image Him.

I don't see it.

I challenge you to connect the dots.

Not one of those verses is relevant to this discussion, save Gen 1:27, and that actually works against your argument. God imaged Himself and commanded we not image Him as human males (Deu 4:15f), proving even when we know what His image is, He forbids us to image Him.

That refutes St John Damascene's argument completely.


So connect the dots, explain how those random verses about a myriad of unrelated subjects is where God expressed His desire we image Him.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: dcommini on August 06, 2010, 09:23:59 PM
The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to my precise point, the few I replied to were still somewhat off, but for apologetic sake, I responded...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...



You still have yet to respond to my point made (instead you mistook one of my post for somebody else's post). I forgive you that, men make mistakes. I have posted no evasion and have shown sola scriptura where God commanded man to make images of God.

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.
Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Quote
Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Quote
Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

Quote
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10
Quote
9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.
There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18
Quote
15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.
There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9
Quote
1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,
There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Quote
Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.
Quote
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!




You failed to show the connection between the scriptures you cite, and God's command in scripture we image Him.

I don't see it.

I challenge you to connect the dots.

Not one of those verses is relevant to this discussion, save Gen 1:26, and that actually works against your argument.

So connect the dots, explain how those random verses about a myriad of unrelated subjects is where God expressed His desire we image Him.



Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: theistgal on August 06, 2010, 09:24:04 PM
Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 09:36:43 PM
Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."





Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: antiderivative on August 06, 2010, 09:43:30 PM
Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."


Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female

Times have changed. The Apostles saw the similitude when the Lord spoke to them. So the prohibition of making images of God is over. Those verses even give the reason for the prohibition, which I put in bold.

So many other people on this thread have already said what I just said. Could you at least respond to that?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 09:43:47 PM
Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore your loved one via your photo, when he is present, or absent?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 09:46:00 PM
Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."


Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female

Times have changed. The Apostles saw the similitude when the Lord spoke to them. So the prohibition of making images of God is over. Those verses even give the reason for the prohibition, which I put in bold.

So many other people on this thread have already said what I just said. Could you at least respond to that?

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 09:48:21 PM
Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore pictures of loved ones, when they are present, or absent?


If our loved ones are Christians, are they ever absent?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 09:53:56 PM
Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore pictures of loved ones, when they are present, or absent?


If our loved ones are Christians, are they ever absent?

Odd, you don't look like theistgal.

If your loved ones are never absent, you don't have pictures of them, right?

Put your lack of pictures where your mouth is, sir.

If you aren't consistent with that claim, either your claim, or you, are false.

So, do you have pictures of loved ones...Christians? Icons of Saints?


Why do you have those, if they are never absent?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Salpy on August 06, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

Yes, I'm still wondering.

Alfred,

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.  I'm just trying to understand you.  I know you don't like Eastern style icons, but how about these more familiar, Western, pictures of Christ:

http://www.warnersallman.com/

(http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/Head-of-Christ.jpg)

(http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/heartsdoorsmall.jpg)

(http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/shepardsmall.jpg)

Are these as objectionable to you as the icons found in the East?

Also, would you feel comfortable tearing these up, or spitting on them, or stomping on them?  If you are not comfortable doing that, isn't that in a sense showing some sort of respect toward them?

 
And to answer your question (since I was the one who first asked you the question theistgal repeated):  I adore the photo of a loved one both when he is present and absent.  Like my nephew:  When I am with him and his parents, and his parents give me a new photo of him, I'll gush over it, tell my nephew how cute he is and give him money.  (I use every excuse to give him money.)  It embarrasses him terribly, but he puts up with it.  So it doesn't really matter if he is present or absent.  I squeal with delight and tell him he is adorable regardless.

So now that I've answered your question, it would be nice if you answered mine.   :)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:00:30 PM
Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

Yes, I'm still wondering.

Alfred,

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.  I'm just trying to understand you.  I know you don't like Eastern style icons, but how about these more familiar, Western, pictures of Christ:

http://www.warnersallman.com/

(http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/Head-of-Christ.jpg)

(http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/heartsdoorsmall.jpg)

(http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/shepardsmall.jpg)

Are these as objectionable to you as the icons found in the East?

Also, would you feel comfortable tearing these up, or spitting on them, or stomping on them?  If you are not comfortable doing that, isn't that in a sense showing some sort of respect toward them?

 
And to answer your question (since I was the one who first asked you the question theistgal repeated):  I adore the photo of a loved one both when he is present and absent.  Like my nephew:  When I am with him and his parents, and his parents give me a new photo of him, I'll gush over it, tell my nephew how cute he is and give him money.  (I use every excuse to give him money.)  It embarrasses him terribly, but he puts up with it.  So it doesn't really matter if he is present or absent.  I squeal with delight and tell him he is adorable regardless.

So now that I've answered your question, it would be nice if you answered mine.   :)

Neither.

As pictures, either could decorate my house.

As icons to venerate, I don't venerate icons, that is a detestable practice God hates.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Salpy on August 06, 2010, 10:07:01 PM

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer both of my questions.  You answered one, now answer the other:  


Would you feel comfortable desecrating the pictures as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised.  The above question was the original one that I asked.  A bargain is a bargain.   :)
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: antiderivative on August 06, 2010, 10:08:03 PM

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?


Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:10:49 PM
AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   :)

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.

Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 10:10:57 PM
Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."


Quote
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female

Times have changed. The Apostles saw the similitude when the Lord spoke to them. So the prohibition of making images of God is over. Those verses even give the reason for the prohibition, which I put in bold.

So many other people on this thread have already said what I just said. Could you at least respond to that?

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?



Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

One last time:

Christ, the Incarnate God, is the similitude we did not see.  Until that point, while we saw the image of God in human flesh, we never saw God in the human flesh.  

Before the Incarnation the only thing we had seen since Adam has been a distorted image, as distorted an image as the fish-man Dagon.
Man, in his sin, was an inappropriate image.  Christ, who sinned not, who was perfect in obedience, was the perfect image that had not been seen in the time of Moses.  Falling at the feet of any other man would be sin, an image of any other man would have been disobedience, an image of any other human (i.e. any model who sat for some pre-Christian sculptor) offered reverence would have been something other than God.  Only Christ, the Perfect Man Who is God, is a worthy and fit subject for our devotion.

Only Christ, by fulfilling the Law, frees us from the Law.  Part of this Law is the Mosaic prohibition against images.

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore pictures of loved ones, when they are present, or absent?


If our loved ones are Christians, are they ever absent?

Odd, you don't look like theistgal.

If your loved ones are never absent, you don't have pictures of them, right?

Put your lack of pictures where your mouth is, sir.

If you aren't consistent with that claim, either your claim, or you, are false.

So, do you have pictures of loved ones...Christians? Icons of Saints?


Why do you have those, if they are never absent?

First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:12:46 PM

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?


Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.

Then you rend the human nature of Christ, from the divine, and image it....Nestorian heresy.

If you image the "whole Christ", then monophsite error is taught the illiterate by your icon.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 10:13:15 PM
AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   :)

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.



Now to get to the meat of my earlier question:  If someone, an atheist, held a gun to your head and told you to trample such a picture, would you?  An innocent, unrevered, picture?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Salpy on August 06, 2010, 10:17:13 PM
AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   :)

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.



Thanks.  I think what happened is that both of us posted at the same time and then modified our posts at the same time.  It happens.   :)

So images of the Incarnate Word of God are OK, as long as they are just used for decoration.  Using them to show love toward the One Who is depicted in the pictures is not OK.   You would burn them if someone venerated them.

How about if someone came into your house and just started spitting on the above pictures?  That's actually closer to my original question from yesterday.  Would it bother you is someone came into your house and started spitting on the pictures?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:17:48 PM
First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

You are crafty. But I insist I get an answer to MY question.

While the loved one is in the room with you, do you take out their picture and speak to it rather than to them?

Aren't pictures necessary ONLY when the person in them, is absent?
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:20:48 PM
AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   :)

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.



Thanks.  I think what happened is that both of us posted at the same time and then modified our posts at the same time.  It happens.   :)

So images of the Incarnate Word of God are OK, as long as they are just used for decoration.  Using them to show love toward the One Who is depicted in the pictures is not OK.   You would burn them if someone venerated them.

How about if someone came into your house and just started spitting on the above pictures?  That's actually closer to my original question from yesterday.  Would it bother you is someone came into your house and started spitting on the pictures?

I'd never let them back into the house. But that honor I paid to the picture is not what the Orthodox demand I do with their icons, they demand I venerate them, also that I believe they mediate grace ect.

So you are trying to prove I would find the taste of an apple agreeable, by proving I like the taste of oranges.

It doesn't work, they are different things.

Pictures are not icons, if they were, then the Orthodox wouldn't mind my not venerating them.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: antiderivative on August 06, 2010, 10:24:28 PM

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?


Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.

Then you rend the human nature of Christ, from the divine, and image it....Nestorian heresy.

If you image the "whole Christ", then monophsite error is taught the illiterate by your icon.

Icons do not depict individual natures. They depict persons. This is what the Church has always taught. The nature of Christ is not depicted, it is His person. This is not Nestorianism, and I don't see how it is Monophysitism.

We are no more guilty of Nestorianism or Monophysitism than the people who saw Christ. When people saw Jesus, they did not see an individual nature, they saw a person. Likewise, we depict a person, not an individual nature.

Besides that, your above posts say that you would approve of an image of Christ as long it was not venerated. According to your reasoning, that means you either approve of Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, since you earlier claimed that the icon causes those heresies.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 10:25:49 PM
First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

You are crafty. But I insist I get an answer to MY question.

While the loved one is in the room with you, do you take out their picture and speak to it rather than to them?

Aren't pictures necessary ONLY when the person in them, is absent?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  I don't speak to pictures.

And surely you are not insisting that our Lord, who was quite plainly seen to be taken bodily into the heavens, and was quite plainly seen by Sts Stephen and John enthroned in heaven, surrounded by the cherubim and saints, is physically present in the room with me at this moment?  I would never be so impious to post from Church during a Liturgy (or during Vespers or any other service).
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:27:17 PM

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?


Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.

Then you rend the human nature of Christ, from the divine, and image it....Nestorian heresy.

If you image the "whole Christ", then monophsite error is taught the illiterate by your icon.

Icons do not depict individual natures. They depict persons. This is what the Church has always taught. The nature of Christ is not depicted, it is His person. This is not Nestorianism, and I don't see how it is Monophysitism.

We are no more guilty of Nestorianism or Monophysitism than the people who saw Christ. When people saw Jesus, they did not see an individual nature, they saw a person. Likewise, we depict a person, not an individual nature.

Besides that, your above posts say that you would approve of an image of Christ as long it was not venerated. According to your reasoning, that means you either approve of Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, since you earlier claimed that the icon causes those heresies.

Then the incarnation of Christ is irrelevant to your icon. If you don't make an icon of Christ because you have seen His flesh, then you may as well make an icon of God, even though you haven't seen His similitude.


The argument for icons rests upon seeing Christ's body, while not making one because of not seeing the similitude.

If you destroy the rationale for icons, then what's to prevent making icons of the Father and the Spirit?



Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:29:55 PM
First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

You are crafty. But I insist I get an answer to MY question.

While the loved one is in the room with you, do you take out their picture and speak to it rather than to them?

Aren't pictures necessary ONLY when the person in them, is absent?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  I don't speak to pictures.

And surely you are not insisting that our Lord, who was quite plainly seen to be taken bodily into the heavens, and was quite plainly seen by Sts Stephen and John enthroned in heaven, surrounded by the cherubim and saints, is physically present in the room with me at this moment?  I would never be so impious to post from Church during a Liturgy (or during Vespers or any other service).

You don't speak to pictures of long absent loved ones, as though they were with you?

You say nothing to them, to yourself, while looking at their picture?

I thought everyone does that.

Christ is Infinite God, omnipresent. That His body is seated in Heaven, doesn't prevent His presence with me daily on earth.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: FormerReformer on August 06, 2010, 10:33:35 PM
AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   :)

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.



Thanks.  I think what happened is that both of us posted at the same time and then modified our posts at the same time.  It happens.   :)

So images of the Incarnate Word of God are OK, as long as they are just used for decoration.  Using them to show love toward the One Who is depicted in the pictures is not OK.   You would burn them if someone venerated them.

How about if someone came into your house and just started spitting on the above pictures?  That's actually closer to my original question from yesterday.  Would it bother you is someone came into your house and started spitting on the pictures?

I'd never let them back into the house. But that honor I paid to the picture is not what the Orthodox demand I do with their icons, they demand I venerate them, also that I believe they mediate grace ect.

So you are trying to prove I would find the taste of an apple agreeable, by proving I like the taste of oranges.

It doesn't work, they are different things.

Pictures are not icons, if they were, then the Orthodox wouldn't mind my not venerating them.

Venerate:vb (tr)
1. to hold in deep respect; revere
2. to honour in recognition of qualities of holiness, excellence, wisdom, etc.

Our form of veneration just so happens to be an old form of showing respect and honor.  Much like Greek and Russian parishes still show respect to one another by physically kissing one another.  No one demands you kiss an icon.  There is no person standing on guard in our churches who is going to kick you out for NOT kissing an icon.

We just respectfully request you don't set our icons on fire, like the Iconoclasts of 8th century Constantinople did.
Title: Re: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 06, 2010, 10:37:12 PM