I only read "There are different kinds of image" and had to stop. It begs the question that all kinds of icon of God are forbidden:
Blame the Apostles, whom St. John quotes:
Col. 1:15 Who is the image
of the invisible God.
Heb. 1 Who being the radiance of his glory and the express image
of His person.
You keep going back to this argument, ignoring outright all the points made about how it is not applicable in this discussion. Oh, well - you're making a poor apologetic because of it. If you're going to disagree with the premise of that thread, you may as well do so in that thread.
It was in this thread you asked me to check it out, so I answered you in this thread.
I told you I didn't read past those opening words, because it begged the question.
It didn't beg any question, as it dealt with the types of images, not the prohibition or enjoinment of them. You'd know that if you read it. Since you haven't read St. John is why I opened the thread.
THIS thread is discussing Deut 4: throughout,
Your part hasn't addressed the New Testament at all. We read the OT only in the light of Christ:
2Cor. 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. 4:3But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 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 icon of God, should shine on them. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
You can go discuss to your veiled hearts content, happily envelopped in Moses' veil, on any number of Jewish fora.
And you brought St. John of Damascus by name into the discussion, and then did not discuss his exegesis. Given the title you gave this thread, one should expect it discucssing St. John throughout.
and my RICH apologetic
LOL. Now THAT's rich.
is standing tall,
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.
undiminished by the evasions and iconography posted.
Father has already spared us the need to respond to that part of your post.
But getting back to your opening post on this thread:
You do not give St. John of Damascus' exegeis of De. 4:15, you just assert it is impossible.
Instead you give your exegesis, and then beg that we not question it.
Then you introduce your prooftexting mantra, keen it seems on showing that the LXX uses "(EIKWN)" in the prohibition of Deut. 4:15, althought you ignore the instances of it used by the Apostles, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and call that "changing the subject."
You then bring up the Nestorianism in a self contradictory statement against icons. The statement demonstrates ignorance that the Nestorians do not have icons, and are, in accordance with their Christology, iconoclast like you.
You then state a proposition, in ignorance it seems that St. John has refuted it, which denies the result of the Incarnation, and then proceed to beg a question trying to pass itself off as a conclusion.
You then further beg the question in your assertion abou any "EIKWNA" of Jesus, although you refuse to recognize, as quoted to you repeatedly, that the Apostles apppy the term "EIKWNA" to Jesus: for reasons you do not demonstrate, you restrict the term only to idols.
You then make an allusion to St. John to swipe him with another assertion based on the question you just begged. You then make a blanket statement about verneration in the OT which can easily (as, unknown to you, St. John has done) be shown false by reading the OT, and in support beg a question you are trying to pass off as a conclusion.
You then, in some pretense of keeping up the appearance of being thorough it seems, go off on two tangents about groves and pillars, making broad sweeping statements that can (and have here) be disproved easily by just reading the OT.
You can't diminish nought, so you're right, your arguments are undiminished.