Topic: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[Fabio Leite]

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)?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Another instance of a commanded image comes in the making of the copper serpent in the book of Numbers by Moses.

[ialmisry]

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?

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.

[Fabio Leite]

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!

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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....)?

[Fr. George]

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.

[SolEX01]

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.   

[recent convert]

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.

[ialmisry]

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)

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.

[Alfred Persson]

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)

[ialmisry]

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."

[Fabio Leite]

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)?

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[recent convert]

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."?

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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."

[Fabio Leite]

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?

[dcommini]

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...

[PeterTheAleut]

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?

[Fabio Leite]

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?

[Alfred Persson]

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.

 

[dcommini]

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.

[Fabio Leite]

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?

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[dcommini]

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.

[ialmisry]

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."

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."

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?

because it's not another god, just a beast on the earth.

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"

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:

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?

[Alfred Persson]

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.

[dcommini]

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).

[ialmisry]

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.

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."

[dcommini]

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.

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

[ialmisry]

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."

[Alfred Persson]

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)

[Fabio Leite]

Alfred,

did God forbid the making of all images or of His images only?

[dcommini]

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.

[FormerReformer]

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?

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

[FormerReformer]

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?

[Alfred Persson]

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?

[ialmisry]

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."

[Alfred Persson]

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