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

[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.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing about.

The fact God never ordained the making of images of Himself, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.

Actually, no, I'm not changing the subject.  You simply refuse to notice how firmly your thesis is built on the premise of sola scriptura and that if you can't defend sola scriptura, your whole house of cards falls down in a big, ruinous heap.  BTW, you notice how many people here are charging you with evasion?  You might want to rethink your arguments here, since by your own definition of the rules of debate, you are losing.

[FormerReformer]

Alfred,

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

I will answer if you first answer me...

Where does God say He wants to be imaged?

You have been answered already:

I appreciate you are learning how to argue, I recommend "A Rulebook for Arguments," by Anthony Weston. Its a good primer.

Then would you care to lead by example by addressing this pertinent observation?

Prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures and your case against icons stands.  If you cannot prove this, your case falls apart as having no foundation. ...

Another bit of advice: You better address this concern and not brush it off as irrelevant, since your very thesis depends on it.

When learning argumentation, you will be warned against tangents, evasion, ad hominem...etc

These are tactics the losing side employs to avoid the issue and if you fall into their trap, you will eventually wonder what you are arguing about.

The fact God never ordained the making of images of Himself, nor expressed any desire to be imaged, but forbade any be made of Him, is the best refutation of iconography under the sun...

You know it...that's why you are changing the subject.

Seasoned debaters realize that indicates you have already lost the argument.

But for now, I'd be satisfied if he would address a piece of the argument, the clear teaching of the Apostles on the subject:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
He is the icon of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation [i.e. including both male and female, all the beasts on the earth, all winged fowel that flieth in the air, all things that creepeth on the ground, all fish in the waters beneath the earth, the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven:any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, as the Apostle makes clear:]

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
For in Him were all things created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by Him and for Him

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness [of Godhead] to dwell in Him.

It is the will of the Father and His good pleasure that He be imaged in the Incarnation of the Son, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person. "He who sees Me sees the Father."

And again:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

[PeterTheAleut]

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.

Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.


From Page 4 of Weston's A Rulebook for Arguments:

3. Start from Reliable Premises

No matter how well you argue from premises to conclusion, your conclusion will be weak if your premises are weak.


As long as you cannot prove the strength of your premise that God speaks ONLY through the Scriptures, you will never convince us of your conclusion that God never says, "Make images of Me."

[Fr. George]

The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

[dcommini]

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.

Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10

9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18

15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.

There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,

There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!

[Fr. George]

Don't bother, I survey all posts, those that blather about me, my faith, my education, my country, my shoes, I ignore.

Of the above, only your faith would be relevant to a discussion on a topic of faith; the rest are non-sequitur.  However, just because someone makes a non-sequitur comment does not mean their whole post is off the point; you have handicapped yourself in the debate because of your inability to answer all the refutations made against you.  Since you claim to have read all the posts, and have not responded to the various refutations, the implicit statement is that you are unable to do so, and have conceded the point in those instances.

Taking that into consideration, there is no debate left to be had; you've conceded by silence to refutations that destroy your opposition to icons.  Good day!

Those who accuse me of belonging to various cults, like Mormonism, I ignore.

Wow, at least we agree that Mormonism is a cult.  I'm shocked.  I have to say, if you're making a Mormon argument against icons, the question is bound to come up.

Those dispatching their icons to slay me, I ignore.

If icons were used in the thread, it was to further the written argument around them.  Again, since you've ignored refutations of your point, in the course of debate you have conceded to them.  

Those that evade the issue by changing the subject, I ignore.

That sounds like a judgment call made by someone inexperienced in the realm of debate - you shouldn't be making that sort of mistake.  If you came to proselytize people to Christ, then you should tackle all the questions, because I assure you they're all related.

Only those actually responding to things I said, I'll answer.

They're all responding you you, good chap.  You've got two entire threads on the busiest English-language Orthodox Forum devoted to you and your argument against icons.

Those who preface their "big point" with reams of smear and ad hominem, might not get a reply. I don't read more than a paragraph or two of ad ahominem...and might miss your "big chance to score!"

There's no scoring with ad hominems.  If you find an ad hominem attack, you should click the "report to moderator" link in the lower-right corner of the post, and the user will be warned to cease and desist.

So put your point first, and then you can foam at the mouth and throw up much dust after.

Awfully condescending, aren't we?  The posts are all either refuting your arguments, or pointing out your flaws in debate.  You should be responding to each one.

Then I probably will answer the point, and ignore the rest.

Suit yourself - you've had a poor track record of ignoring points of great import, so I'm going to presume that the above statement is a reassurance that you will continue said poor record.

So make you point first, then you can post your icons. I don't bother reading what is beneath them.

So what you're saying is your quest to proselytize people to Christ is a lazy quest, as you won't be bothered with important stuff if it comes beneath a picture.  Right.  You should take your debate to ICQ or some Instant Messenger place, then.

So no list, I'll ignore it.

Too bad - you said you're here to proselytize to Christ; we are willing to offer you an entire list of arguments you cannot refute, and you won't bother reading them?

But in one respect these bring joy:

 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
 23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
 (Luk 6:22-23 KJV)

Your reward is only great if you are defending the Faith of the Apostles, the Faith of the Fathers... The Faith of the Orthodox, the Faith on which the Universe was founded.

[Alfred Persson]

And again:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

AND it proves too much. If man's body is the image of God, then why commandments against us imaging it with God as its prototype"

So your own premises PROVES  God does not want US to image Him, even when we know precisely what His image is.

[dcommini]

And again:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

BUT you still lack a text where God expresses His desire we image Him.

I believe you will find what you are looking for in my above post.

[Alfred Persson]

And again:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

BUT you still lack a text where God expresses His desire we image Him.

I believe you will find what you are looking for in my above post.

No, I didn't. Your argument the "word of God" comes through the church contradicts apostolic tradition:

The "Word of God" does not come through the church's tongues, prophecy, supernatural knowledge, or living tradition. It came through the founding apostles:

 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
 (1Co 14:36-38 KJV)

[dcommini]

And again:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

BUT you still lack a text where God expresses His desire we image Him.

I believe you will find what you are looking for in my above post.

No, I didn't. Your argument the "word of God" comes through the church contradicts apostolic tradition:

The "Word of God" does not come through the church's tongues, prophecy, supernatural knowledge, or living tradition. It came through the apostles:

 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
 (1Co 14:36-38 KJV)

I believe you misread what I said, dear sir...

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.

Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10

9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18

15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.

There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,

There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!

that ^ is what I said.

[Alfred Persson]

The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to any point; the few who came close I magnanimously chose to treat, but that was for generosity sake ...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...

[dcommini]

The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to my precise point, the few I replied to were still somewhat off, but for apologetic sake, I responded...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...

You still have yet to respond to my point made (instead you mistook one of my post for somebody else's post). I forgive you that, men make mistakes. I have posted no evasion and have shown sola scriptura where God commanded man to make images of God.

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.

Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10

9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18

15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.

There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,

There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!

[FormerReformer]

And again:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

The fact that you have rejected these answers does not mean an answer has not been forthcoming.

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

Gen 1:26 the only verse you cited that is close to being relevant, but it fails as you overlooked something very important: God imaging Himself is NOT Him saying He wants us to image Him.

AND it proves too much. If man's body is the image of God, then why commandments against us imaging it with God as its prototype"

So your own premises PROVES  God does not want US to image Him, even when we know precisely what His image is.

And you still have yet to answer any questions put to you.

Before this debate can go anywhere we need to know your definitions, sir.

[PeterTheAleut]

The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to any point; the few who came close I magnanimously chose to treat, but that was for generosity sake ...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...

The Christian man can only boast truly of how much of a sinner he is and of the Cross of Jesus Christ.  To boast of oneself is arrogance.

[Aindriú]

Pull chocks people. This is over.

[Alfred Persson]

The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to my precise point, the few I replied to were still somewhat off, but for apologetic sake, I responded...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...

You still have yet to respond to my point made (instead you mistook one of my post for somebody else's post). I forgive you that, men make mistakes. I have posted no evasion and have shown sola scriptura where God commanded man to make images of God.

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.

Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10

9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18

15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.

There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,

There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!

You failed to show the connection between the scriptures you cite, and God's command in scripture we image Him.

I don't see it.

I challenge you to connect the dots.

Not one of those verses is relevant to this discussion, save Gen 1:27, and that actually works against your argument. God imaged Himself and commanded we not image Him as human males (Deu 4:15f), proving even when we know what His image is, He forbids us to image Him.

That refutes St John Damascene's argument completely.

So connect the dots, explain how those random verses about a myriad of unrelated subjects is where God expressed His desire we image Him.

[dcommini]

The only thing proving "impossible" in this thread is getting Mr. Persson to respond to each of the refutations of his points.

I challenge that. Copy paste the answers to my precise points.

I predict you will post evasions. At present I don't recall even one person responding to my precise point, the few I replied to were still somewhat off, but for apologetic sake, I responded...cause that is the Christian man that I am, going the extra mile...

You still have yet to respond to my point made (instead you mistook one of my post for somebody else's post). I forgive you that, men make mistakes. I have posted no evasion and have shown sola scriptura where God commanded man to make images of God.

Not one of those is God saying He wants us to image Him.


There is only your blather He does.

Not scripture.

Once again, that argument works only if you can prove that God speaks solely through Scripture.  If you cannot, then the thesis you're defending on this thread disintegrates.  You will never convince us of anything until you can first prove to us that God speaks ONLY through Scripture.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Genesis 1:27 (New King James Version)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 9:6 (New King James Version)

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

For a guy who doesn't want images of Him, He sure did make a lot of them! First up, man is an image of God. Man and female both are images of God.
Gen 35:9-10

9 Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: “I am  God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

There is an example of God telling Jacob to make many little, happy, joyful images of God (sometimes known as children)

Gen 8:15-18

15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is  with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.

There is an example of God telling Noah and his family to make little images of God

Gen 9:1-9

1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning;  from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

 6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
      By man his blood shall be shed;
      For in the image of God
      He made man.

 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
      Bring forth abundantly in the earth
      And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,

There God commands multiple times to Noah and his family to make images of God.

Genesis 1:28 (New King James Version)

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is a commandment from God to Adam and Eve to make little images of God (pre-fall of man)

Secondly we see in the above quote of Matthew that Christ is telling the Apostles that they are icons of Christ.

40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41  He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.” Matthew 10:40-42 (NKJV)

Need thee any more proof that God has commanded us to make images of Him? I am proud to say that my wife and I have made a precious, tiny image of God (thus following God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply) and she is quite cute!

You failed to show the connection between the scriptures you cite, and God's command in scripture we image Him.

I don't see it.

I challenge you to connect the dots.

Not one of those verses is relevant to this discussion, save Gen 1:26, and that actually works against your argument.

So connect the dots, explain how those random verses about a myriad of unrelated subjects is where God expressed His desire we image Him.

Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

[theistgal]

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

[Alfred Persson]

Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."

[antiderivative]

Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female

Times have changed. The Apostles saw the similitude when the Lord spoke to them. So the prohibition of making images of God is over. Those verses even give the reason for the prohibition, which I put in bold.

So many other people on this thread have already said what I just said. Could you at least respond to that?

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore your loved one via your photo, when he is present, or absent?

[Alfred Persson]

Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female

Times have changed. The Apostles saw the similitude when the Lord spoke to them. So the prohibition of making images of God is over. Those verses even give the reason for the prohibition, which I put in bold.

So many other people on this thread have already said what I just said. Could you at least respond to that?

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?

[FormerReformer]

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore pictures of loved ones, when they are present, or absent?

If our loved ones are Christians, are they ever absent?

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore pictures of loved ones, when they are present, or absent?

If our loved ones are Christians, are they ever absent?

Odd, you don't look like theistgal.

If your loved ones are never absent, you don't have pictures of them, right?

Put your lack of pictures where your mouth is, sir.

If you aren't consistent with that claim, either your claim, or you, are false.

So, do you have pictures of loved ones...Christians? Icons of Saints?


Why do you have those, if they are never absent?

[Salpy]

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

Yes, I'm still wondering.

Alfred,

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.  I'm just trying to understand you.  I know you don't like Eastern style icons, but how about these more familiar, Western, pictures of Christ:

http://www.warnersallman.com/







Are these as objectionable to you as the icons found in the East?

Also, would you feel comfortable tearing these up, or spitting on them, or stomping on them?  If you are not comfortable doing that, isn't that in a sense showing some sort of respect toward them?

 
And to answer your question (since I was the one who first asked you the question theistgal repeated):  I adore the photo of a loved one both when he is present and absent.  Like my nephew:  When I am with him and his parents, and his parents give me a new photo of him, I'll gush over it, tell my nephew how cute he is and give him money.  (I use every excuse to give him money.)  It embarrasses him terribly, but he puts up with it.  So it doesn't really matter if he is present or absent.  I squeal with delight and tell him he is adorable regardless.

So now that I've answered your question, it would be nice if you answered mine.   

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

Yes, I'm still wondering.

Alfred,

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.  I'm just trying to understand you.  I know you don't like Eastern style icons, but how about these more familiar, Western, pictures of Christ:

http://www.warnersallman.com/







Are these as objectionable to you as the icons found in the East?

Also, would you feel comfortable tearing these up, or spitting on them, or stomping on them?  If you are not comfortable doing that, isn't that in a sense showing some sort of respect toward them?

 
And to answer your question (since I was the one who first asked you the question theistgal repeated):  I adore the photo of a loved one both when he is present and absent.  Like my nephew:  When I am with him and his parents, and his parents give me a new photo of him, I'll gush over it, tell my nephew how cute he is and give him money.  (I use every excuse to give him money.)  It embarrasses him terribly, but he puts up with it.  So it doesn't really matter if he is present or absent.  I squeal with delight and tell him he is adorable regardless.

So now that I've answered your question, it would be nice if you answered mine.  

Neither.

As pictures, either could decorate my house.

As icons to venerate, I don't venerate icons, that is a detestable practice God hates.

[Salpy]

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer both of my questions.  You answered one, now answer the other:  


Would you feel comfortable desecrating the pictures as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised.  The above question was the original one that I asked.  A bargain is a bargain.  

[antiderivative]

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?

Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.

[Alfred Persson]

AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.

[FormerReformer]

Adam and Eve were created in God's image. Man was created in God's image. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. If man is an image of God, every time a man procreates he thus creates another image of God. Therefore God commanded man to make images of God by commanding man to procreate.

I believe that is a very logical conclusion.

Every verse I used was relevant to this discussion, and it is very obvious how I connect the dots in my post. If you were truthful in saying that you read every post then you would have actually seen where I connected the dots underneath the verses I quoted.

I would love to debate you more on this matter, but I simply can not tonight; I have to be up very early tomorrow morning for my obligations to the National Guard this weekend. Please understand that this is not me backing out of the debate, rather I am ceasing to interject any more until after this weekend - though I do hope that this debate will be over by then.

No, none of them are. You suppose God wanted His image mulitipled, but God blessed THEM, not His image:

 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:28 KJV)

Not once does God say "Oh goody, this means my image will be everywhere!"

Moreover, God expressly rejects man making images in the fashion of man directly contradicting your argument.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This text coupled with Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" destroys St John Damascene's argument completely, "even when we know precisely what God's image is, He forbids we image Him."

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIK0NA), the likeness of male or female

Times have changed. The Apostles saw the similitude when the Lord spoke to them. So the prohibition of making images of God is over. Those verses even give the reason for the prohibition, which I put in bold.

So many other people on this thread have already said what I just said. Could you at least respond to that?

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

One last time:

Christ, the Incarnate God, is the similitude we did not see.  Until that point, while we saw the image of God in human flesh, we never saw God in the human flesh.  

Before the Incarnation the only thing we had seen since Adam has been a distorted image, as distorted an image as the fish-man Dagon.
Man, in his sin, was an inappropriate image.  Christ, who sinned not, who was perfect in obedience, was the perfect image that had not been seen in the time of Moses.  Falling at the feet of any other man would be sin, an image of any other man would have been disobedience, an image of any other human (i.e. any model who sat for some pre-Christian sculptor) offered reverence would have been something other than God.  Only Christ, the Perfect Man Who is God, is a worthy and fit subject for our devotion.

Only Christ, by fulfilling the Law, frees us from the Law.  Part of this Law is the Mosaic prohibition against images.

Alfred, you never answered this question from an earlier post and I think it's a  good one:  would you dishonor an image of Christ by spitting on it, tearing it up, etc.?  Why or why not?  Thank you.

I will answer your question, but only on the condition you answer mine first.

When do you adore pictures of loved ones, when they are present, or absent?

If our loved ones are Christians, are they ever absent?

Odd, you don't look like theistgal.

If your loved ones are never absent, you don't have pictures of them, right?

Put your lack of pictures where your mouth is, sir.

If you aren't consistent with that claim, either your claim, or you, are false.

So, do you have pictures of loved ones...Christians? Icons of Saints?


Why do you have those, if they are never absent?

First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

[Alfred Persson]

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?

Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.

Then you rend the human nature of Christ, from the divine, and image it....Nestorian heresy.

If you image the "whole Christ", then monophsite error is taught the illiterate by your icon.

[FormerReformer]

AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.

Now to get to the meat of my earlier question:  If someone, an atheist, held a gun to your head and told you to trample such a picture, would you?  An innocent, unrevered, picture?

[Salpy]

AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.

Thanks.  I think what happened is that both of us posted at the same time and then modified our posts at the same time.  It happens.  

So images of the Incarnate Word of God are OK, as long as they are just used for decoration.  Using them to show love toward the One Who is depicted in the pictures is not OK.   You would burn them if someone venerated them.

How about if someone came into your house and just started spitting on the above pictures?  That's actually closer to my original question from yesterday.  Would it bother you is someone came into your house and started spitting on the pictures?

[Alfred Persson]

First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

You are crafty. But I insist I get an answer to MY question.

While the loved one is in the room with you, do you take out their picture and speak to it rather than to them?

Aren't pictures necessary ONLY when the person in them, is absent?

[Alfred Persson]

AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.

Thanks.  I think what happened is that both of us posted at the same time and then modified our posts at the same time.  It happens.  

So images of the Incarnate Word of God are OK, as long as they are just used for decoration.  Using them to show love toward the One Who is depicted in the pictures is not OK.   You would burn them if someone venerated them.

How about if someone came into your house and just started spitting on the above pictures?  That's actually closer to my original question from yesterday.  Would it bother you is someone came into your house and started spitting on the pictures?

I'd never let them back into the house. But that honor I paid to the picture is not what the Orthodox demand I do with their icons, they demand I venerate them, also that I believe they mediate grace ect.

So you are trying to prove I would find the taste of an apple agreeable, by proving I like the taste of oranges.

It doesn't work, they are different things.

Pictures are not icons, if they were, then the Orthodox wouldn't mind my not venerating them.

[antiderivative]

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?

Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.

Then you rend the human nature of Christ, from the divine, and image it....Nestorian heresy.

If you image the "whole Christ", then monophsite error is taught the illiterate by your icon.

Icons do not depict individual natures. They depict persons. This is what the Church has always taught. The nature of Christ is not depicted, it is His person. This is not Nestorianism, and I don't see how it is Monophysitism.

We are no more guilty of Nestorianism or Monophysitism than the people who saw Christ. When people saw Jesus, they did not see an individual nature, they saw a person. Likewise, we depict a person, not an individual nature.

Besides that, your above posts say that you would approve of an image of Christ as long it was not venerated. According to your reasoning, that means you either approve of Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, since you earlier claimed that the icon causes those heresies.

[FormerReformer]

First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

You are crafty. But I insist I get an answer to MY question.

While the loved one is in the room with you, do you take out their picture and speak to it rather than to them?

Aren't pictures necessary ONLY when the person in them, is absent?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  I don't speak to pictures.

And surely you are not insisting that our Lord, who was quite plainly seen to be taken bodily into the heavens, and was quite plainly seen by Sts Stephen and John enthroned in heaven, surrounded by the cherubim and saints, is physically present in the room with me at this moment?  I would never be so impious to post from Church during a Liturgy (or during Vespers or any other service).

[Alfred Persson]

You didn't defend John of Damascus at all. He said we couldn't image God's similitude, because we never saw it, But we did see Christ's Body, so we can image it.

Well, humans are made in God's image, we have seen them, yet God forbade we image Him as a human, direclty contradicting John Damascene's argument.

Won't you stand up for him?

Perhaps I didn't know what similitude meant. I know St. John of Damascus said we cannot image God's divine nature, since we haven't seen it. So if similitude refers to God's divine nature, then St. John is certainly right. We do not image God's divine nature because we have not seen it.

We can image God in the person of Christ because men have seen Christ.

Then you rend the human nature of Christ, from the divine, and image it....Nestorian heresy.

If you image the "whole Christ", then monophsite error is taught the illiterate by your icon.

Icons do not depict individual natures. They depict persons. This is what the Church has always taught. The nature of Christ is not depicted, it is His person. This is not Nestorianism, and I don't see how it is Monophysitism.

We are no more guilty of Nestorianism or Monophysitism than the people who saw Christ. When people saw Jesus, they did not see an individual nature, they saw a person. Likewise, we depict a person, not an individual nature.

Besides that, your above posts say that you would approve of an image of Christ as long it was not venerated. According to your reasoning, that means you either approve of Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, since you earlier claimed that the icon causes those heresies.

Then the incarnation of Christ is irrelevant to your icon. If you don't make an icon of Christ because you have seen His flesh, then you may as well make an icon of God, even though you haven't seen His similitude.


The argument for icons rests upon seeing Christ's body, while not making one because of not seeing the similitude.

If you destroy the rationale for icons, then what's to prevent making icons of the Father and the Spirit?

[Alfred Persson]

First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

You are crafty. But I insist I get an answer to MY question.

While the loved one is in the room with you, do you take out their picture and speak to it rather than to them?

Aren't pictures necessary ONLY when the person in them, is absent?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  I don't speak to pictures.

And surely you are not insisting that our Lord, who was quite plainly seen to be taken bodily into the heavens, and was quite plainly seen by Sts Stephen and John enthroned in heaven, surrounded by the cherubim and saints, is physically present in the room with me at this moment?  I would never be so impious to post from Church during a Liturgy (or during Vespers or any other service).

You don't speak to pictures of long absent loved ones, as though they were with you?

You say nothing to them, to yourself, while looking at their picture?

I thought everyone does that.

Christ is Infinite God, omnipresent. That His body is seated in Heaven, doesn't prevent His presence with me daily on earth.

[FormerReformer]

AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.

Thanks.  I think what happened is that both of us posted at the same time and then modified our posts at the same time.  It happens.  

So images of the Incarnate Word of God are OK, as long as they are just used for decoration.  Using them to show love toward the One Who is depicted in the pictures is not OK.   You would burn them if someone venerated them.

How about if someone came into your house and just started spitting on the above pictures?  That's actually closer to my original question from yesterday.  Would it bother you is someone came into your house and started spitting on the pictures?

I'd never let them back into the house. But that honor I paid to the picture is not what the Orthodox demand I do with their icons, they demand I venerate them, also that I believe they mediate grace ect.

So you are trying to prove I would find the taste of an apple agreeable, by proving I like the taste of oranges.

It doesn't work, they are different things.

Pictures are not icons, if they were, then the Orthodox wouldn't mind my not venerating them.

Venerate:vb (tr)
1. to hold in deep respect; revere
2. to honour in recognition of qualities of holiness, excellence, wisdom, etc.

Our form of veneration just so happens to be an old form of showing respect and honor.  Much like Greek and Russian parishes still show respect to one another by physically kissing one another.  No one demands you kiss an icon.  There is no person standing on guard in our churches who is going to kick you out for NOT kissing an icon.

We just respectfully request you don't set our icons on fire, like the Iconoclasts of 8th century Constantinople did.

[Alfred Persson]

AND you will keep wondering until you snap out of it, and join the discussion.

Oh goodness gracious.  A little bird is telling me that you just don't want to answer my questions.  The questions are simple, and require only yes or no answers: 

1.  Are the images above as objectionable to you as Orthodox icons?

2.  Would you feel comfortable desecrating them as I described above?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine, as promised..  A bargain is a bargain.   

I had an epiphany and changed my answer, check it out.

Your little bird lied to you.

No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.

I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.

If I discovered people venerating those pictures in my house, I would burn the pictures...such detestable practice is not allowed in my house.

Thanks.  I think what happened is that both of us posted at the same time and then modified our posts at the same time.  It happens.  

So images of the Incarnate Word of God are OK, as long as they are just used for decoration.  Using them to show love toward the One Who is depicted in the pictures is not OK.   You would burn them if someone venerated them.

How about if someone came into your house and just started spitting on the above pictures?  That's actually closer to my original question from yesterday.  Would it bother you is someone came into your house and started spitting on the pictures?

I'd never let them back into the house. But that honor I paid to the picture is not what the Orthodox demand I do with their icons, they demand I venerate them, also that I believe they mediate grace ect.

So you are trying to prove I would find the taste of an apple agreeable, by proving I like the taste of oranges.

It doesn't work, they are different things.

Pictures are not icons, if they were, then the Orthodox wouldn't mind my not venerating them.

Venerate:vb (tr)
1. to hold in deep respect; revere
2. to honour in recognition of qualities of holiness, excellence, wisdom, etc.

Our form of veneration just so happens to be an old form of showing respect and honor.  Much like Greek and Russian parishes still show respect to one another by physically kissing one another.  No one demands you kiss an icon.  There is no person standing on guard in our churches who is going to kick you out for NOT kissing an icon.

We just respectfully request you don't set our icons on fire, like the Iconoclasts of 8th century Constantinople did.

Doesn't the Seventh Council command they be kissed?

You can't defend Orthodox belief by denying it. Perhaps your church isn't following the rules, but that is irrelevant to my argument, which is in reference to icons as objects of veneration.

If you don't venerate them, I believe you are in violation...but that is your business, not mine. I certainly don't venerate them, and am glad I don't.

[antiderivative]

Then the incarnation of Christ is irrelevant to your icon. If you don't make an icon of Christ because you have seen His flesh, then you may as well make an icon of God, even though you haven't seen His similitude.


The argument for icons rests upon seeing Christ's body, while not making one because of not seeing the similitude.

If you destroy the rationale for icons, then what's to prevent making icons of the Father and the Spirit?

I'm not sure how what I just said made the incarnation of Christ irrelevant. The person of God the Father has not been seen, and is therefore not depictable, the person of the Holy Spirit has been seen in the form of a dove and is depictable, and Christ was seen because of the incarnation, and is also depictable.

[FormerReformer]

First, theistgal merely reposted my (and others') question.

Second, I have pictures of my loved ones, who are indeed present.  A picture of my mother, who resides downstairs, is in my wallet.  A picture of my brother (dcommini) who is looking over my shoulder, is right next to hers.  A picture of Christ, for whose sake I am not resorting to name-calling, and who happens to be here as well, is in the corner of my room.

You are crafty. But I insist I get an answer to MY question.

While the loved one is in the room with you, do you take out their picture and speak to it rather than to them?

Aren't pictures necessary ONLY when the person in them, is absent?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  I don't speak to pictures.

And surely you are not insisting that our Lord, who was quite plainly seen to be taken bodily into the heavens, and was quite plainly seen by Sts Stephen and John enthroned in heaven, surrounded by the cherubim and saints, is physically present in the room with me at this moment?  I would never be so impious to post from Church during a Liturgy (or during Vespers or any other service).

You don't speak to pictures of long absent loved ones, as though they were with you?

You say nothing to them, to yourself, while looking at their picture?

I thought everyone does that.

I usually call them on the phone.  Some phones I have do display a picture, but I've never talked to that picture.  I might kiss a picture of an absent loved one.  If the loved one is departed in the flesh I may say a few words at their grave site, or even just upon thinking of them, but I don't need a picture to do that.

Christ is Infinite God, omnipresent. That His body is seated in Heaven, doesn't prevent His presence with me daily on earth.

So you can see our Lord in the room with you right now?  If yes, contact your nearest bishop or a psychiatrist, whichever you think you need most.    

[Alfred Persson]

Then the incarnation of Christ is irrelevant to your icon. If you don't make an icon of Christ because you have seen His flesh, then you may as well make an icon of God, even though you haven't seen His similitude.


The argument for icons rests upon seeing Christ's body, while not making one because of not seeing the similitude.

If you destroy the rationale for icons, then what's to prevent making icons of the Father and the Spirit?

I'm not sure how what I just said made the incarnation of Christ irrelevant. The person of God the Father has not been seen, and is therefore not depictable, the person of the Holy Spirit has been seen in the form of a dove and is depictable, and Christ was seen because of the incarnation, and is also depictable.

Think about your statement:

The person of God the Father has not been seen, and is therefore not depictable

It should follow:

"The person of God the Son has not been seen, and is therefore not depictable"

BUT it doesn't, you depict the Son. How? Because His body was seen.

So the very existence of  your icon rests, not upon the Person, but upon the body of Christ.

So your icon must be imaging His Body, even if you maintain the prototype is the whole Christ.

The Person, and infinite Being of God, are not visible to image, only His body is.

So you can't tell me Christ's body is not being imaged by your icon.

[Salpy]

I'll kiss my nephew's picture and speak to it ("You're so cute!") even when my nephew is in the room.  But then, like I said, I get the feeling I kind of embarrass him.  

Don't other people do that also, or is it just me?