Btw, to demonstrate my point, St. John also cites St. Athanasius "Against the Arians," quoted by the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea II:
So I'm actually gonna come down on Alfred's side on a certain point: the quotations ialmisry gave is St. John quoting something, but my copy of On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2003) states the following on p. 119:
St. Athanasius, from the hundred chapters written to Antiochus the ruler in the form of question and answer, chapter 38: [here follows the quotation, but the footnote to that introduction states thusly:]
"The 'Questions and Answers' (Erotapokriseis), wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius the Great (PG 28.621BC= Doctr. Patr. 327.16-328.3; the quotation in Doct. Patr. is longer than that cited by John, but textually much closer than that preserved in Migne."
I'm aware of that. Since Aflred hasn't read St. John (as you point out, the translation notes the source of the quotaion), nor, as far as he has demonstrated thus far, anything attributed to or actually written by Pope St. Athanasius, he wasn't aware of that. Now that you have done his homework for him, he will now go on with his assertions without facts.
5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? And why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds, 'that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. ' Moreover, He has added this again, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father ;' and there is one and the same sense in these three passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that 'He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father.' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, 'I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me. ' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.i.html
So have a passage in St. John from St. Athanasius where Pope St. Athanasius refers to the veneration of icons. But that isn't going to change things. Alfred will just gloss over that inconvenient fact and continue to prattle on that it doesn't sound like St. Athanasius, blah...blah...blah.
So, Alfred, what cards YOU got?
Apropros, St. Athanasius starts this section (not quoted by St. John):
The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, 'When the impious comes into a depth of evils, he despises ;' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having 'a whore's forehead,' they 'refuse to be ashamed Jeremiah 3:3 ' before all men in their irreligion.
THAT is not the quote:
That wasn't the question. The question was whether you have read either St. John or St. Athanasius, as you have demonstrated no knowledge of either. If I want to discuss that quote, I'll talk with David B.
Quote from: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 04:31:13 PM
Oh? St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.
Find that quote in Athanasius, I do not believe Athanasius said that at all.
We all notice that you avoid responding to the quote from St. Athanasius' Orations against the Arians
. Do you not beleive Pope St. Athanasius said that? On what "knowledge" do you base that?
Just as John of Damascus thought he was quoting Dionysius, but was actually citing Pseudo-Dionysius, so also I think he confused a Pseudo-Athanasius with the real one.
Since both "Pseudo-Athanasius" and "Pseudo-Dionysios" predate the iconoclasts by centuries, and were accepted by the iconoclasts as authorities alongside SS. Athanasius and Dionysios, not only you ignoring the valid point made in the quote does not help your argument but your questioning of the source fails to come to your rescue as well.
Btw, the writings of St. Athanasius form a source of the Erotapokriseis, like the Orations against the Arians which St. John, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and I quoted above.http://www.kalleres.com/doc/15.3jacobs.pdf
You brought it up, you prove its valid.
You mean you want me to authenticate it. Do keep up.
The points are valid:
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did.
God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire.
Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner.
Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection.
Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.
They remain valid whether I, you, St. Athanasius or the devil himself say them (did the verses quoted by Satan in the wilderness to Christ cease to be truth thereby?). Pope St. Athanasius professes the same Faith that the Apostles, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, St. John and I profess, professing it in the quote the Fathers of the Council, St. John and I gave from St. Athanasius' orations against you Arians above, and this one too, from his letter to Bishop Adelphios against the Arians:
"We do not worship a creature. Far be the thought. For such an error belongs to heathens and Arians
. But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God. For if the flesh also is in itself a part of the created world, yet it has become God's body. And we neither divide the body, being such, from the Word, and worship it by itself , nor when we wish to worship the Word do we set Him far apart from the Flesh, but knowing, as we said above, that 'the Word was made flesh,' we recognise Him as God also, after having come in the flesh. Who, accordingly, is so senseless as to say to the Lord: 'Leave the Body that I may worship You;' or so impious as to join the senseless Jews in saying, on account of the Body, 'Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?' But the leper was not one of this sort, for he worshipped God in the Body, and recognised that He was God, saying, 'Lord, if You will You can make me clean.' Neither by reason of the Flesh did he think the Word of God a creature: nor because the Word was the maker of all creation did he despise the Flesh which He had put on. But he worshipped the Creator of the universe as dwelling in a created temple
, So also the woman with an issue of blood, who believed, and only touched the hem of His garment, was healed, and the sea with its foaming waves heard the incarnate Word, and ceased its storm , while the man blind from birth was healed by the fleshly spitting of the Word. And, what is greater and more startling (for perhaps this even offended those most impious men), even when the Lord was hanging upon the actual cross (for it was His Body and the Word was in it), the sun was darkened and the earth shook, the rocks were rent, and the veil of the temple rent, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose
...And let not the most impious Arian madmen suppose that, since the Body is created, the Word also is a creature, nor let them, because the Word is not a creature, disparage His Body. For their error is matter for wonder, in that they at once confuse and disturb everything, and devise pretexts only in order to number the Creator among the creatures.
But let them listen. If the Word were a creature, He would not assume the created body to quicken it. For what help can creatures derive from a creature that itself needs salvation? But since the Word being Creator has Himself made the creatures, therefore also at the consummation of the ages He put on the creature, that He as creator might once more consecrate it, and be able to recover it. But a creature could never be saved by a creature, any more than the creatures were created by a creature, if the Word was not creator. Accordingly let them not lie against the divine Scriptures nor give offense to simple brethren; but if they are willing let them change their mind in their turn, and no longer worship the creature instead of God, Who made all things
. But if they wish to abide by their impieties, let them alone take their fill of them, and let them gnash their teeth like their father the devil, because the Faith of the Catholic Church knows that the Word of God is creator and maker of all things; and we know that while 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' now that He has become also man for our salvation we worship Him, not as though He had come in the body equalising Himself with it, but as Master, assuming the form of the servant, and Maker and Creator coming in a creature in order that, in it delivering all things, He might bring the world near to the Father, and make all things to be at peace, things in heaven and things on the earth. For thus also we recognise His Godhead, even the Father's, and worship His Incarnate Presence, even if the Arian madmen burst themselves in sunder."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iv.xv.html
and from his "On the Incarnation":
"For as, when the likeness painted on a panel has been effaced by stains from without, he whose likeness it is must needs come once more to enable the portrait to be renewed on the same wood: for, for the sake of his picture, even the mere wood on which it is painted is not thrown away, but the outline is renewed upon it; in the same way also the most holy Son of the Father, being the icon of the Father, came to our region to renew man once made in His likeness."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xiv.html
And from his Orations Against the Arians:
"However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise ‘one,’ or ‘like,’ as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it. For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father’s teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this. Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? for if therefore the Son and the Father are One and if in this way the Word is like the Father, it follows fortwith that the Angels too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God’s Icon and Word. But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image? for among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs...And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, ‘I and the Father are One,’ or, ‘I in the Father, and the Father in Me;’ but it is said of all of them, ‘Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? and who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods?’ and of Him on the contrary that He only is Icon true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the Icon, and called both icon and glory of God, yet not on our own account still, but for that Icon and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation. This their notion then being evidently unseemly and irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shown to have anything beyond things originate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but He will be like the Father’s doctrines; and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Father, but the doctrines and teaching are the Father’s. If then in respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Icon, or rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father? for Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like ‘Him in essence.' Having then such notions, they speak falsely; whereas the Son and the Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker, and the Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Son, as He promised when He said, ‘I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with him;’ for in the Icon is contemplated the Father....And if the Patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasses, said, ‘God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from all evil, bless the lads,’ yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, ‘Who delivered me from all evil,’ he shewed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God,...,’ he said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, ‘I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me’ (for that was God, as he says himself, ‘I have seen God face to face’), Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph...Therefore it was no other than the Lord God Himself whom he had seen, who said to him, ‘And behold I am with thee, to guard thee in all the way whither thou goest;'...For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and to refute the allegation of Gentiles who maintain and think, on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods...Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism...Wherefore then, when the Arians have these speculations and views, do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? for they too, as these, worship the creature rather than God the Creator of all, and though they shrink from the Gentile name, in order to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretly hold a like sentiment with them. And though the Greeks worship one Unoriginate and many originate, but these one Unoriginate and one originate, this is no difference from them; for the God whom they call originate is one out of many, and again the many gods of the Greeks have the same nature with this one, for both he and they are creatures. Unhappy are they, and the more for that their hurt is from thinking against Christ; for they have fallen from the truth, and are greater traitors than the Jews in denying the Christ, and they wallow with the Gentiles, hateful as they are to God, worshipping the creature and many deities...Suitably has He joined the ‘Word’ to the ‘Form,’ to show that the Word of God is Himself Icon and Expression and Form of His Father; and that the Jews who did not receive Him who spoke to them, thereby did not receive the Word, which is the Form of God. This too it was that the Patriarch Jacob having seen, received a blessing from Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine Scripture witnesses, saying, ‘And as he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose upon him.' And This it was who said, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,’http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.iii.html
"I did indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of Arius’s madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent new expedients for their irreligion...But although they might have learned from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing it (for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘it was not before its generation’), yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief of the present Jews, but would have inquired and learned...that it was said of Him, as by John, ‘The Word became flesh...so by Paul...and again, ‘He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant...For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man...If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor Word, nor Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Icon, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son, neithe is He Icon...As we have shown then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son is confessed to be not external to his father but from him, let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not ‘to Him that begat Him,’ but ‘to Him that made Him;’ for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question. For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the essence is a work or creature, then the words ‘He made,’ and ‘He became,’ and ‘He created,’ are used of it properly, and designate the work. But when the Essence is an Offspring and Son, then ‘He made,’ and ‘He became,’ and ‘He created,’ no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but ‘He made’ we use without question for ‘He begat.’ Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally; for they use the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iii.i.html
And from his letter to Bishop Adelphios against the Arians:
"But we should like your piety to ask them this. When Israel was ordered to go up to Jerusalem to worship at the temple of the Lord, where was the ark, 'and above it the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the Mercy-seat,' did they do well or the opposite? If they did ill, how came it that they who despised this law were liable to punishment? For it is written that if a man make light of it and go not up, he shall perish from among the people. But if they did well, and in this proved well-pleasing to God, are not the Arians, abominable and most shameful of any heresy, many times worthy of destruction, in that while they approve the former People for the honour paid by them to the Temple, they will not worship the Lord Who is in the flesh as in a temple?
And yet the former temple was constructed of stones and gold, as a shadow. But when the reality came, the type ceased from thenceforth, and there did not remain, according to the Lord's utterance, one stone upon another that was not broken down. And they did not, when they saw the temple of stones, suppose that the Lord who spoke in the temple was a creature; nor did they set the Temple at nought and retire far off to worship. But they came to it according to the Law, and worshipped the God who uttered His oracles from the Temple. Since then this was so, how can it be other than right to worship the Body of the Lord
, all-holy and all-reverend as it is, announced as it was by the archangel Gabriel, formed by the Holy Spirit, and made the Vesture of the Word? It was at any rate a bodily hand that the Word stretched out to raise her that was sick of a fever: a human voice that He uttered to raise Lazarus from the dead; and, once again, stretching out His hands upon the Cross, He overthrew the prince of the power of the air, that now works in the sons of disobedience, and made the way clear for us into the heavens. Therefore he that dishonours the Temple dishonours the Lord in the Temple; and he that separates the Word from the Body sets at nought the grace given to us in Him
I tried to find the quote in my copy of the Fathers, and could not.
Yeah, no Fathers in Bibleworks. Just Protestant speculations.
You mentioned Schaff, I couldn't find it there either.
Links provided above.
Everything John of Damascus said about Icons is a mistake. His misquotes go far to prove precisely that.
We all notice that you continue to refuse to address the quotation from St. Athanasius' Oration against the Arians, quoted by St. John (and the Fathers at Nicea II), as you will not address, no doubt, the quotations from St. Athanasius and the links to Schaff above. St. John expression of the Orthodox Faith is not mistaken. Your twisting of the Scriptures is. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of Christ's image. For in the image is the shape and form of Christ, and in Christ is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of Christ in the image is exact; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it Christ; and he again who sees Christ, recognises that it is He who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view Christ, the image might say, 'I and Christ are one; for I am in Him, and He in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in Him, and what you have seen in Him, that you hold in me. ' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships Christ also; for the image is His form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son
As for worshiping the Father via His Image the Son, THAT is OK, no lies in the image, Christ is the exact image of the Father:
the express image of His person (Heb 1:3 NKJ)
You cannot compare your two dimensional images with the Person of the Son,
As shown above, St. Athanasius, like St. John, does.
even you must admit that comparison is impossible:
Only if I was foolish enough to embrace your Arianism.
18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? (Isa 40:18 KJV)
2 Corin. 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same icon from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. 4:1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 But 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. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 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.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg461788.html#msg461788http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29148.0.html