OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 03:07:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible  (Read 40947 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #315 on: August 06, 2010, 10:46:44 PM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #316 on: August 06, 2010, 10:52:36 PM »

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

I bolded the relevant part of my post pertaining to your question.  The Seventh Ecumenical Council must be read within it's cultural context, that is to say a)Constantinople and b)the Eighth century.  In the Eighth century it was common in all of Western (that is to say, west of China) cultures to show respect by kissing the object of respect, whether that object was a person or a picture.  In 21st century American culture, such kissing is not the norm.

I kiss an icon, just as I've gotten used to kissing the hand of my priest, out of respect and reverence and affection (venerate is derived from the Latin "venus", love), the same as I kiss my mother.  When I first started going to an Orthodox church nobody expected me to kiss anything, and I didn't kiss icons.  Nobody ever told me at any point during my inquiry or catacheumenate that "Today you must kiss an icon" (or the priest's hand, for that matter).  However, I certainly had respect and honor for the icons, Byzantine iconography was both the main draw and stumbling block (I didn't want to go to a church just because it had pretty pictures) to the Orthodox church for me.

Edit: The quotes above are a little messed up, and I'm not super leet enough to fix them
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 10:54:55 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #317 on: August 06, 2010, 10:53:35 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought everyone does that.


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.

Quote
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.    

My point is elegant, Orthodox apologetic proves much more than they want when they liken icons to pictures.

People talk to pictures only if the person pictured is absent.

Therefore, talking to icon implies the prototype is not present, otherwise the icon would be unnecessary.

So icons of Christ testify He is not present.

As Christ is always present indwelling a Christian, icons testify the venerator doesn't have Christ indwelling.

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom 8:9 KJV)

Therefore, the veneration of Jesus Christ via an icon proves the venerater doesn't have Him indwelling and therefore is not a Christian.



« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 11:01:14 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,835


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #318 on: August 06, 2010, 11:00:06 PM »

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.

Thanks for answering.  This helps me understand you better.   Smiley  

I just want to clarify, though:  Are you saying that realistic looking pictures of the Incarnate Word of God, like the ones I posted above, are not banned by the Bible, but the less realistic Eastern icons are?

Also, don't you think protecting the pictures from being spat on is a sort of veneration?  I mean you're not kissing it, but you don't want someone to spit on it.  I can't help but think of that as somehow showing respect to it in a manner that passes that respect on to Christ.

I mean, you wouldn't put a picture of a pagan god in a place of honor in your home, but it seems you would do that with a picture of Christ.  Also, I don't think you would mind someone spitting on a picture of a pagan god, but you would not allow someone to do that to a picture of Christ.  Isn't that a sort of "soft" veneration?  If God forbade any depiction of Himself at all, isn't showing that sort of respect toward the above pictures something that would be banned by the Bible?
Logged

Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #319 on: August 06, 2010, 11:04:49 PM »

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.

Thanks for answering.  This helps me understand you better.   Smiley  

I just want to clarify, though:  Are you saying that realistic looking pictures of the Incarnate Word of God, like the ones I posted above, are not banned by the Bible, but the less realistic Eastern icons are?

Also, don't you think protecting the pictures from being spat on is a sort of veneration?  I mean you're not kissing it, but you don't want someone to spit on it.  I can't help but think of that as somehow showing respect to it in a manner that passes that respect on to Christ.

I mean, you wouldn't put a picture of a pagan god in a place of honor in your home, but it seems you would do that with a picture of Christ.  Also, I don't think you would mind someone spitting on a picture of a pagan god, but you would not allow someone to do that to a picture of Christ.  Isn't that a sort of "soft" veneration?  If God forbade any depiction of Himself at all, isn't showing that sort of respect toward the above pictures something that would be banned by the Bible?

Your questions have been answered, your argument is immaterial to my points. Its time to move on and talk about my points, not your pictures.




« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 11:05:16 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,524



« Reply #320 on: August 06, 2010, 11:19:39 PM »

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.

You are going to need to clarify something here for me.
Jesus Christ is one Person. He has two natures - one divine, one human.

Your statements "The person of God the Son has not been seen, and is therefore not depictable" and "The Person, and infinite Being of God, are not visible to image" tell me that your understanding of "person of God the Son" is solely divine and that His body is just a body, nothing more. It does not appear that you believe His human nature to be as much of His Personhood as His divine nature. In an earlier post, I questioned your understanding of the Incarnation. I repeat that question.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #321 on: August 06, 2010, 11:37:06 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought everyone does that.


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.

Quote
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.    

My point is elegant, Orthodox apologetic proves much more than they want when they liken icons to pictures.

People talk to pictures only if the person pictured is absent.

Therefore, talking to icon implies the prototype is not present, otherwise the icon would be unnecessary.

So icons of Christ testify He is not present.

As Christ is always present indwelling a Christian, icons testify the venerator doesn't have Christ indwelling.

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom 8:9 KJV)

Therefore, the veneration of Jesus Christ via an icon proves the venerater doesn't have Him indwelling and therefore is not a Christian.





Alright, last post tonight before bed.  I have bolded the quotation above that appears to be the thrust of the argument.

The indwelling and presence of Christ as we are in this life is not the same as the anticipated day of Resurrection when we will apprehend with our eyes and be able to fall down before the Glorified Lord. 

When St Paul says "I am crucified with Christ, it is not I who live, but Christ in me" I hardly think that we are supposed to interpret this to mean that the Risen and Ascended Son of God lived in St Paul the same way He lived in Nazareth, or in the same sense that He now lives in Heaven.

To your Romans 8:9 I say:

"Therefore I make known to you now that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit."  I Corinthians 12:3

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner!
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,670


WWW
« Reply #322 on: August 06, 2010, 11:38:33 PM »

I've seen images of Christ along with scenes from the Bible inside the Mormon Temple Visitor's Center in Washington, DC.  They are artwork, not "graven images" ....  What desires did these "artists" follow when they imaged Jesus?

Alfred, you haven't answered the bolded question.  Thank You in advance.   Smiley
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,670


WWW
« Reply #323 on: August 06, 2010, 11:47:24 PM »

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

Just as I ignore your colleagues in the white shirts, black paints, pocket protectors, bicycles and the Book of Mormon.

Those dispatching their icons to slay me, I ignore.

Are you admitting to paranoia?  You may need to call a local helpline or 911.

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

You call my arguments "inept" and I think your arguments are "contemptuous."  You have no respect for what has been said to you on this board.

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)

Expressing the sentiments of Brigham Young when he settled Salt Lake City after his predecessor and his followers were kicked out of town after town from New York State westward?   Roll Eyes
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,928


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #324 on: August 07, 2010, 12:03:45 AM »

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

Just as I ignore your colleagues in the white shirts, black paints, pocket protectors, bicycles and the Book of Mormon.

Those dispatching their icons to slay me, I ignore.

Are you admitting to paranoia?  You may need to call a local helpline or 911.

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

You call my arguments "inept" and I think your arguments are "contemptuous."  You have no respect for what has been said to you on this board.

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)

Expressing the sentiments of Brigham Young when he settled Salt Lake City after his predecessor and his followers were kicked out of town after town from New York State westward?   Roll Eyes
SolEX01, just what do you hope to accomplish by continuing to accuse Alfred of being a Mormon?
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,436



WWW
« Reply #325 on: August 07, 2010, 12:08:22 AM »

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?

I will answer if you, who claim to know the fundaments of debates answer this:

is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
Or in other words, in all unsolved murders, the absence of evidence of the identity of the murderer is evidence that this identity is actually absent (and therefore the murder was committed by a person withouth identity)?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,928


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #326 on: August 07, 2010, 12:10:51 AM »

Alfred, you still haven't answered my question.  What proof do you have that God speaks only through the Scriptures?  Since you're basing your condemnation of icons on the premise that God never said, "Image Me," in the Scriptures, you need to prove that He never spoke through any other medium.  Refuse to do so, and you might as well quit arguing, since you'll only be arguing from a premise we don't accept.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #327 on: August 07, 2010, 12:25:07 AM »

Alfred, I think you should study what the Orthodox (and RCatholic) church actually teaches about icons, images, etc. - I don't think you really undertstand our point of view here. For example, you mentioned above that Orthodox believe icons "mediate grace" - that is INCORRECT.  Icons are simply objects - tools, if you will.  They don't "mediate" anything!
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #328 on: August 07, 2010, 01:07:08 AM »

My point is elegant,

Proverbs 16:2, Revelation 3:17

Quote
Orthodox apologetic proves much more than they want when they liken icons to pictures.

People talk to pictures only if the person pictured is absent.

Like a video phone? A web cam? When I worked security, I talked to the picture on the screen all the time, and they talked back. I also talk to the T.V. during the news.  As long as it doesn't talk back I figure I'm OK.

Quote
Therefore, talking to icon implies the prototype is not present, otherwise the icon would be unnecessary.

I'll remember that the next time the authorities ask me to present a photo I.D.

Quote
So icons of Christ testify He is not present.

Does Perssonism believe like the Jehovah's witness, that Christ doesn't have a body anymore, but is a spirit?

Or do yuu see Christ bodily present, in which case we're back to Joseph Smith Jr. again. I guess He never ascended, always being present in the Christians down here.

Quote
As Christ is always present indwelling a Christian, icons testify the venerator doesn't have Christ indwelling.

I have a very bad habit of not talking straight to someone.  I'll talk while walking around, looking into a cabinet , etc. instead of looking someone right in the face while walking around. But I guess you don't find that important.

I also guess that if someone urinated on an image of Christ, that's OK in Perssonism, no?

Quote
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom 8:9 KJV)

Therefore, the veneration of Jesus Christ via an icon proves the venerater doesn't have Him indwelling and therefore is not a Christian.

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that spirit of antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world.  (I John 4:3 KJV).

Therefore, the refusal to venerate Christ's icon proves the refuser doesn't confess He is come in the flesh and therefore is that spirit of the antichrist.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 01:11:06 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #329 on: August 07, 2010, 01:15:43 AM »

To your Romans 8:9 I say:

"Therefore I make known to you now that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit."  I Corinthians 12:3

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner!


Non sequitur, liars can say it, all man have free will and can say anything they please.

The text means "speaking by the spirit." No one prophesying by Holy Spirit say Jesus is accursed, no one prophesying by evil spirit can say Jesus is LORD," they can't because demons cannot.

Neither can evil spirits say Jesus Christ came in the flesh:

 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
 (1Jo 4:2-3 KJV)

All this is evading the fact John of Damascus' argument fails a simple test: "Does God want to be imaged by us?" The answer is "Hell No." THAT is what scripture teaches.

« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 01:17:40 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #330 on: August 07, 2010, 01:19:45 AM »

To your Romans 8:9 I say:

"Therefore I make known to you now that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit."  I Corinthians 12:3

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner!


Non sequitur, liars can say it, all man have free will and can say anything they please.

Oh, okay, so you don't believe Scripture is 100% accurate (because you just said that St. Paul was wrong when he said "no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit".).

Great to see that you have conceded the fallacy of "sola Scriptura".  Smiley
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #331 on: August 07, 2010, 01:38:21 AM »

To your Romans 8:9 I say:

"Therefore I make known to you now that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit."  I Corinthians 12:3

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner!


Non sequitur, liars can say it, all man have free will and can say anything they please.

Oh, okay, so you don't believe Scripture is 100% accurate (because you just said that St. Paul was wrong when he said "no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit".).

Great to see that you have conceded the fallacy of "sola Scriptura".  Smiley

Incorrect, scripture is 100% accurate, and if you don't believe, and one day are taken in a vision (ufo abduction; out of body transdimensional voyage; etc), the way to end it is to ask the "people/angels/saints/aliens/whoever they are pretending to be", if they can confess Jesus is LORD or that He came in the flesh. Immediately the "vision/dream/abduction/whatever" will end, their disguise will disappear and their evil nature will be revealed.

So remember the test, it might save you one day if attacked that way by the devil.

But the test is useless for men, we have free will, and can say anything we please.

Satan and his angels operate under certain restrictions...one of them is they cannot say these things, God won't let them...

I'm going to break my rule, and explain to you why they cannot say "Jesus Christ came in the flesh," the reason is in Phil 2:7

 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
 (Phi 2:6-7 KJV)

Satan's fall began when he questioned the existence of "true love." He reasoned all have a selfish motive. That's what Job's test was all about, whether God erred when He created to experience true love with free will creatures. Satan argued it doesn't happen, there is a selfish motive to everything:

 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
 (Job 1:8-9 KJV)

Satan's argument was, "God you erred, you just declared Job perfect, but he is not, he has selfish motives for what he does. As you made a mistake, you are not God and must grant me a kingdom." That is, a God who makes mistakes doesn't meet God's own criteria for being God, and as Judge, God would disqualify Himself. That was Satan's only hope, to use God against Himself, it was never a test of strength, God is infinite, Satan a finite creature, no contest.

Job passed the test, but it was Jesus Christ who forever and completely refuted the argument true love doesn't exist.

Although infinite God, having all the privileges of God in heaven, Jesus "sells all He owns" as it were, and takes on the form of a servant, even to the horrible death at Calvary, all for His true love for His Father, and true love for us, his children.

So devils choke on the words the Word of God became flesh, because it was that act of true love that sealed their fate forever.

« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 01:48:08 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #332 on: August 07, 2010, 02:22:49 AM »

Alfred, I think you should study what the Orthodox (and RCatholic) church actually teaches about icons, images, etc. - I don't think you really undertstand our point of view here. For example, you mentioned above that Orthodox believe icons "mediate grace" - that is INCORRECT.  Icons are simply objects - tools, if you will.  They don't "mediate" anything!

Sorry if my terminology was inaccurate, I meant "mediate" as in "involving, going through, medium", a clumsy way of saying  "God works miracles through icons.

BY the way, I don't subscribe to the theory, but that is for another thread, God is omnipresent, He doesn't "work through" anything. Rather He is revealing Himself, truth, something, by use of objects mentioned in scripture."

However, I meant it as the bold words in the following:

Orthodox Christian Information Center

3. Do Icons work miracles?

To put this question in proper perspective, let's consider a few other questions: Did the Ark of the Covenant work miracles (e.g. Joshua 3:15ff; 1st Samuel 4-6; 2nd Samuel 11-12)? Did the Bronze Serpent heal those bitten by snakes (Numbers 21:9)?  Did the Prophet Elisha's bones raise a man from the dead (2nd Kings 13:21)?  Did St. Peter's shadow heal the sick (Acts 5:15)?  Did aprons and handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul heal the sick and caste out evil spirits (Acts 19:12)?

The answer to these questions are, Yes, in a manner of speaking. Nevertheless, to be precise, it was God who chose to work miracles through these things.  In the case of the Ark and the Bronze serpent, we have images used to work miracles.  God worked a miracle through the relics of the Prophet Elisha, through the shadow of a Saint, and through things that had merely touched a Saint.  Why?  Because God honors those who honor Him (1st Samuel 2:30), and thus takes delight in working miracles through his Saints, even by these indirect means.  The fact that God can sanctify material things should come as no surprise to those familiar with Scripture.  For example, not only was the Altar of the Temple holy, but anything that touched it was holy as well (Exodus 29:37).  To reject the truth that God works through material things is to fall into Gnosticism.

So yes, loosely speaking, Icons can work miracles—but to be precise, it is God who works miracles through Icons, because He honors those who have honored Him.




http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 02:32:57 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,928


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #333 on: August 07, 2010, 03:02:30 AM »

All this is evading the fact John of Damascus' argument fails a simple test: "Does God want to be imaged by us?" The answer is "Hell No." THAT is what scripture teaches.
And yet again, you evade my question.  Does God speak solely through the Scriptures?  You keep citing the Scriptures as your authority, so you MUST be able to answer this question.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #334 on: August 07, 2010, 03:53:17 AM »

All this is evading the fact John of Damascus' argument fails a simple test: "Does God want to be imaged by us?" The answer is "Hell No." THAT is what scripture teaches.
And yet again, you evade my question.  Does God speak solely through the Scriptures?  You keep citing the Scriptures as your authority, so you MUST be able to answer this question.

I'll answer, but you won't like it---The Word of God does not come from the church:

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)

This means the tongues, prophecy, (supernatural) knowledge, and the church's "living tradition" were NOT the "word of God."

So Catholic/Orthodox theory they have the "word of God" contradict apostolic doctrine.


You may believe I am at a disadvantage, you couldn't be more wrong:

All necessary oral tradition exists today in Scripture; Scripture is oral tradition written down:  


1)Oral tradition became scripture:  

At about 51-52 AD Paul' commanded obedience to both apostolic word and letter, so both coexisted at that time.  

2 Th 2:15  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.    

BUT a chronological list of NT books has 2 Thessalonians as the 6th NT, a full 21 bible books were written after that.  

Even in 2 Thessalonians we see the process of oral becoming written:  

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? (2Th 2:5 RSV)  

The process continued throughout the writing of the NT (AD. 68-70):    

17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;  

18 they said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."  

(Jud 1:17-18 RSV)  

2)All necessary oral tradition exists today in the Bible:  

Paul wrote about A.D. 67, before the last Bible Book was written, that scripture THEN contained all necessary to be complete, equipped for every good work. In vs. 17 He says this is why God wrote the Bible, to fully equip men of God for every good work, such as, for example, knowing true doctrine so one can teach it faithfully to others:  

16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  

17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-1 RSV)  

 
It is impossible Paul is wrong about this "as the Bible was not yet finished when he wrote", for it is now scripture and therefore God has providentially sealed it as inerrant.  

Some Catholics protest the addition of more scripture PROVES it cannot mean all required to be complete is contained in scripture.  

 BUT that does not follow as any banquet (Isa 55:1ff) shows. Like a host, God provides more food, even after the guests have ate and are fully satisfied. Therefore God's providing more food does not prove the quests were starving to death.  





5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
 6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
 9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.
 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
(Jam 4:5-10 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)

DO PRECISELY what Paul commanded, repent and confess Christ is LORD publicly, before the eyes of angels and men:[/b]

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed (Rom 10:9-11 KJV)

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
 (Act 3:19-20 KJV)


Then you will receive your marching orders, the time is short.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 04:03:24 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,928


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #335 on: August 07, 2010, 05:48:47 AM »

All this is evading the fact John of Damascus' argument fails a simple test: "Does God want to be imaged by us?" The answer is "Hell No." THAT is what scripture teaches.
And yet again, you evade my question.  Does God speak solely through the Scriptures?  You keep citing the Scriptures as your authority, so you MUST be able to answer this question.

I'll answer, but you won't like it---The Word of God does not come from the church:
I didn't ask you to prove that God does not speak through the Church.  I asked you to prove that God speaks only through the Scriptures.  The following does not do so.

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)

This means the tongues, prophecy, (supernatural) knowledge, and the church's "living tradition" were NOT the "word of God."

So Catholic/Orthodox theory they have the "word of God" contradict apostolic doctrine.
WRONG!!!  St. Paul stated in this passage that his writings are the commandments of the Lord, but he says nothing in this passage you use as a proof text that the witness of the Church is NOT the "word of God".  This would in fact contradict his statement in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

You may believe I am at a disadvantage, you couldn't be more wrong:

All necessary oral tradition exists today in Scripture; Scripture is oral tradition written down:
But this is exactly what I'm asking you to prove, that God speaks only through the Scriptures.  Mere restatement of the same assertion in different words is not proof of the assertion.

1)Oral tradition became scripture:  

At about 51-52 AD Paul' commanded obedience to both apostolic word and letter, so both coexisted at that time.  

2 Th 2:15  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.    

BUT a chronological list of NT books has 2 Thessalonians as the 6th NT, a full 21 bible books were written after that.  

Even in 2 Thessalonians we see the process of oral becoming written:  

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? (2Th 2:5 RSV)  

The process continued throughout the writing of the NT (AD. 68-70):    

17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;  

18 they said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."  

(Jud 1:17-18 RSV)
Any scholarly review of early church history will bear out the above statements on how the Scriptures of the New Testament were born of a desire to commit the oral traditions of the Church to writing.  However, your next point is merely a recapitulation of your argument that God speaks only through the Scriptures, the very argument I'm asking you to prove.

2)All necessary oral tradition exists today in the Bible:  

Paul wrote about A.D. 67, before the last Bible Book was written, that scripture THEN contained all necessary to be complete, equipped for every good work. In vs. 17 He says this is why God wrote the Bible, to fully equip men of God for every good work, such as, for example, knowing true doctrine so one can teach it faithfully to others:  

16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  

17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-1 RSV)
This doesn't say that Scripture contains all that is necessary for a person to be complete.  All this says is that Scripture is inspired by God and useful for making the man of God complete, but this passage doesn't rule out other media of Divine Revelation whereby God can accomplish the same.

It is impossible Paul is wrong about this "as the Bible was not yet finished when he wrote", for it is now scripture and therefore God has providentially sealed it as inerrant.
Okay now, where does the Bible call itself inerrant? 

Some Catholics protest the addition of more scripture PROVES it cannot mean all required to be complete is contained in scripture.
You do realize that we're not (Roman) Catholic?  To equate us with Catholics and address us as such is to commit a major faux pas that shows how little you understand your audience.

BUT that does not follow as any banquet (Isa 55:1ff) shows. Like a host, God provides more food, even after the guests have ate and are fully satisfied. Therefore God's providing more food does not prove the quests were starving to death.
Of course not!  But such argument can be advanced also as proof of our claim that the Holy Spirit did not stop guiding us into all truth once the last book of the Bible was written and added to the canon.  You've essentially undermined your own position with that last statement.


5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
 6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
 9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.
 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
(Jam 4:5-10 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)

DO PRECISELY what Paul commanded, repent and confess Christ is LORD publicly, before the eyes of angels and men:[/b]

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed (Rom 10:9-11 KJV)

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
 (Act 3:19-20 KJV)


Then you will receive your marching orders, the time is short.
Exactly the message the Church proclaims during this season of the two-week fast.  Thanks for the reminder.

Thank you also for at least attempting to engage my questioning.  You're still continuing essentially to advance without proof the same assertion I asked you earlier to prove, but you're at least granting that my question is important enough for you to address it.  I appreciate you giving me that level of respect. Smiley
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #336 on: August 07, 2010, 07:33:23 AM »

WOW! Such a heated (a burning one) debate has been going on for a while.

Alfred's responses remind me of the theological debate I had a few days ago with a Muslim guy who insisted that Jesus was not God because nowhere in the Gospels can we find Him say: "I am God, worship me".  Roll Eyes
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,835


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #337 on: August 07, 2010, 07:45:33 AM »

But did the Muslim guy at least answer your questions? 

Alfred has been picking and choosing which questions to address.  If he were solid in his position, he would have no problem answering all of them.   Smiley
Logged

Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #338 on: August 07, 2010, 07:56:18 AM »

But did the Muslim guy at least answer your questions? 

NO.  Grin He kept quoting the first commandment from Exodus and Christ's statements on the UNITY of God from the synoptic Gospels.

Alfred has been picking and choosing which questions to address.  If he were solid in his position, he would have no problem answering all of them.   Smiley

The Muslim guy changed his stand whenever I refuted his arguments. When I quoted John 8:58 for him and showed how Jesus made Himself equal to YHWH, the only true God of the OT, he argued that the NT did not have the Hebrew word YHWH! laugh
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #339 on: August 07, 2010, 08:30:04 AM »

All this is evading the fact John of Damascus' argument fails a simple test: "Does God want to be imaged by us?" The answer is "Hell No." THAT is what scripture teaches.
And yet again, you evade my question.  Does God speak solely through the Scriptures?  You keep citing the Scriptures as your authority, so you MUST be able to answer this question.

I'll answer, but you won't like it---The Word of God does not come from the church:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Orthodox Church is not the same Church which wrote the Bible.

No one has the autograph, that is, the copy that those whom God insipired wrote down.  For the OT, that is several centuries after they were writen.

(Btw, I don't know if Perssonism rejects what the Protestants call the "Apocrypha."  The problem is that not a single Christian manuscript of the OT does not contain them.  Not one.  If you can't trust the copyist for his canon, how can you trust his text? The Jews' Masoretic text, upon which Protestantism rests (rejecting the Apostles for the rabbis) postdates the Church, and has the problem that the Jews celebrate Hanukah (although the only scriptural warrant to do so is in Maccabbess), the Talmud comments on Sirach (whose Hebrew text has now been found, and had a formative role on Jewish liturgy) etc.  It dates from around the 10th cent., which is also the date of the oldest complete (according to the Jewish reckoning) Hebrew Bible, several centuries after the earliest manuscripts the Church has of the complete (including the "Apocrypha") OT).

We have only fragments in the second century (there is single fragment that may be dated to the first century). The earliest complete NT manuscripts of individual books comes from the 3rd century, of the complete NT come from the 4th century, after the Church had held the First Ecumenical Council.  By the standards of ancient manuscript text history, still excellent (most ancient texts have their earliest manuscript around a millenium after writing), but still not the autographs, and dependent on centuries of copying.  By those in the Orthodox Church.  

We know that because the bulk of the textual evidence comes from lectionaries, the readings from the Bible chosen for the Divine Liturgy etc. on certain days, and not codexes, the ones the evangelicals take to their services (which, in contrast to the DL, are largely devoid of scriptural content).  In fact, everyone having their own Bible wasn't possible until printing, 15 centuries after the Church was born and the NT written.  Another source is the writings of the Fathers-except for a few verses, the entire NT can be reconstructed from their writting down the Faith as they received it from the Church.

The KJV translators, upon which Perssonism seems to base itself (correct me if I'm wrong), based itself on a few manuscritpts from the Orthdoox Church, dating a thousand years after the autographs.

Then there is the issue of canon: the first record we have of a canon like the one we (including Perssonism's, I assUme) have, is the Paschal letter of Pope St. Athanasius of 367. Before that, we have we have various lists of the preceding two centuries, which disagree among each other and with the present canon.  Not a small issue: those other Gospels that St. Paul talked about were circulating and accepted by some.  Archaeologists, along with the earliest manuscripts of the NT, have found these as well, including the "Gospel of Truth" of Valentinius, whose dogma of Christ bringing His body from Heaven and passing through the Virgin like water through a pipe seems to be replicated in the dogmas of Perssonism.

Bottom line: you can claim that the Bible does not come from the Church, but you cannot deny that you got it from the Church. Unless you go the Mani, Muhammand and  Joseph Smith Jr. route and claim "another Testament" of the Biblical canon and text.

Since this is more on the teaching of Perssonism than St. John's teaching on De 4:15, if, Lord willing, I have the time to finish responding to this, I will do so on the appropriate thread (where maybe the posts from this thread on Perssnonism's teaching on sola scriptura might be merged. Or maybe a new thread on Perssonim's teaching on scripture might be warranted too).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html


Btw, Father Bernstein, a Jew from whom the veil of Moses was lifted, talks about these issues:Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?
http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html



Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #340 on: August 07, 2010, 08:47:53 AM »


I will answer if you first answer me...

Where does God say He wants to be imaged?
[size]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.

The Church has held that He does so state in these verses, from the time our correligionist St. Paul wrote them to us at Colossae, (Btw, I've been there. It's in the middle of nowhere: I had to hitch a ride from a farmer on his tractor, and walk the rest of the way. But gorgeous country), as our Father among the saints, St. John of Damascus (remember him from since your title?):

Quote
What audacity ! What boldness of mind, to fight God and His commands! You, who refuse to worship images, would not worship the Son of God, the Living Image of the invisible God, and His unchanging form. I worship the image of Christ as the Incarnate God.

If you do not worship images, you do not worship the Son of God, who is the living image of the invisible God, and the immutable figure of His substance. The temple which Solomon built was consecrated by the blood of animals, and decorated by images of lions, oxen, and the palms and pomegranates. Now, the Church is consecrated by the blood of Christ and of His saints, and it is adorned with the image of Christ and of His saints. Either take away the worship of images altogether, or be not an innovator, and pass not beyond the ancient boundaries which thy fathers have set. I am not speaking of boundaries prior to the incarnation of Christ our Lord, but since His coming. God spoke to them, depreciating the traditions of the old law, saying, ' I also gave them statutes that were not good,' on account of their hardness of heart. Consequently on the change of priesthood the law of necessity was also changed.

Receive the united testimony of Scripture and the fathers to show you that images and their worship are no new invention, but the ancient tradition of the Church. In the holy Gospel of St Matthew our Lord called His disciples blessed, and with them all those who followed their example and walked in their footsteps in these words: ' Blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. For, amen I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them.' We also desire to see as much as we may. 'We see now in a glass, darkly,' and in image, and are blessed. God Himself first made an image, and showed forth images. For He made the first man after His own image. And Abraham, Moses, and Isaias, and all the prophets saw images of God, not the substance of God. The burning bush was an image of God's Mother, and as Moses was about to approach it, God said: ' Put off the. shoes from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.' Now if the spot on which Moses saw an image of Our Lady was holy, how much more the image itself? And not only is it holy, but I venture to say it is the holy of holies (aylwv dyta). When the Pharisees asked our Lord why Moses had allowed a bill of divorce, He answered : ' On account of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wife, but in the beginning it was not so.' And I say to you that Moses, through the children of Israel's hardness of heart, and knowing their proclivity to idolatry, forbade them to make images. We are not in the same case. We have taken a firm footing on the rock of faith, being enriched with the light of God's friendship.

Listen to our Lord's words: ' Ye foolish and blind, whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it; and he that sweareth by heaven sweareth by the throne of God, and by Him that sitteth thereon.' And he who swears by an image swears by the one whom it represents. It has been sufficiently proved that the tabernacle, and the veil, the ark and the table, and everything within the tabernacle, were images and types, and the works of man's hand, which were worshipped by all Israel, and also that the cherubim in carving were made by God's order. For God said to Moses, ' See that thou doest all things according to the pattern shown to thee on the mount.' Listen, too, to the apostle's testimony that Israel worshipped images and the handiwork of man in obedience to God: ' If, then, he were on earth he would not be a priest; seeing that there would be others to offer gifts according to the law, who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See (says he) that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the mount. But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith : ' Behold the day shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a New Testament: not according to the Testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.' And a little further on: ' Now in saying a New, he hath made the former Old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end. For there was a tabernacle made the first, wherein were the candlesticks, and the table, and the setting forth of loaves, which is called the Holy. And after the second veil, the tabernacle, which is called the Holy of Holies; having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament. And over it were the cherubims of glory overshadowing the propitiatory.' And again : ' For Jesus is not entered into the Holies made with hands, the patterns of the true; but into heaven itself.' And again : ' For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things.'

You see that the law and everything it ordained and all our own worship consist in the consecration of what is made by hands, leading us through matter to the invisible God. Now the law and all its ordinances were a foreshadowing of the image in the future, that is, of our worship. And our worship is an image of the eternal reward. As to the thing itself, the heavenly Jerusalem, it is invisible and immaterial, as the same divine apostle says: ' We have not here an abiding city, but we seek for the one above, the heavenly Jerusalem, of which God is Lord and Architect.' All ordinances of the law and of our worship have been directed for that heavenly city. To God be praise for ever. Amen.

Images are of various kinds. First there is the natural image. In everything the natural conception must be the first, then we come to institution according to imitation. The Son is the first natural and unchangeable image of the invisible God, the Father, showing the Father in Himself. ' For no man has seen God.' Again, ' Not that any one has seen the Father.' The apostle says that the Son is the image of the Father, ' Who is the image of the invisible God,' and to the Hebrews, ' Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance.' In the Gospel of St John we find that He does show the Father in Himself. When Philip said to Him, ' Show us the Father and it is enough for us,' our Lord replied, ' Have I been so long with you and have you not known Me, Philip ? He who sees Me, sees the Father.' For the Son is the natural image of the Father, unchangeable, in everything like to the Father, except that He is begotten, and that He is not the Father. The Father begets, being unbegotten. The Son is begotten, and is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For no one can say the Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit we know Christ, the Son of God and God, and in the Son we look upon the Father. For in things that are conceived by nature,language is the interpreter, and spirit is the interpreter of language. The Holy Spirit is the perfect and unchangeable image of the Son, differing only in His procession. The Son is begotten, but does not proceed. And the son of any father is his natural image. Thus, the natural is the first kind of image.
Btw, God didn't tell Solomon (or for that matter, David) or Hiram and his workmen to build the Temple.

Quote
There is only your blather He does.

That's your assertion, not an argument.

The Church, who wrote those verses by herself, to herself, in herself, has taught they do.

Quote
Not scripture.

The Church, speaking through scripture, Tradition, her worship, etc. speaks with one voice.  Christ's, that same voice that spoke on Sinai, and spoke with Moses and Elijah on Tabor.

Quote
God repeatedly said no icons of any kind of Him, that includes your 2 dimensional icons.

DEUT 4:15 MANTRA[/B]

He said that it was His good pleasure to dwell in His visible icon (we know Christ was visible, because  St. Paul, in whom the Spirit wrote Colossians, whence comes the above verses. Or are you calling St. Paul a liar?).

Btw, the verses you quote speak it seems of 3 dimensional images. But I won't quibble on that.

The Amish and others claim that the verses forbid any image, for instance even photographs (btw. a photograph of a saint is not the same as an icon. The photograph only records visible light and is missing the dimension of the Light of Christ.  Sort of like how infrared photography, X-ray, etc. show other things than visible light).  There interpretation  has as much authority as yours, i.e. none, but they too depend only on the text and what, like you, they read into it.

(my apologies to the Amish for the comparison).
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 08:54:01 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #341 on: August 07, 2010, 09:22:05 AM »

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

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

Now please, answer a few of our questions.

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

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

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




St. John, citing prior authority of the Church:
Quote
Now, as we are talking of images and worship, let us analyse the exact meaning of each. An image is a likeness of the original with a certain difference, for it is not an exact reproduction of the original. Thus, the Son is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God, bearing in Himself the whole Father, being in all things equal to Him, differing only in being begotten by the Father, who is the Begetter ; the Son is begotten. The Father does not proceed from the Son, but the Son from the Father. It is through the Son, though not after Him, that He is what He is, the Father who generates. In God, too, there are representations and images of His future acts,—that is to say, His counsel from all eternity, which is ever unchangeable. That, which is divine is immutable.; there is. no change in Him, nor shadow of change. Blessed Dionysius (the Aerogropite) who has made divine things in God's presence his study, says that these representations and images are marked out beforehand. In His counsels, God has noted and settled all that He would do, the unchanging future events before they came to pass. In the same way, a man who wished to build a house, would first make and think out' a plan. Again, visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light. Holy Scripture clothes in figure God and the angels, and the same holy man (Blessed Dionysius) explains why. When sensible things sufficiently render what is beyond sense, and give a form to what is intangible, a medium would be reckoned imperfect according to our standard, if it did not fully represent material vision, or if it required effort of mind. If, therefore, Holy Scripture, providing for our need, ever putting before us what is intangible, clothes it in flesh, does it not make an image of what is thus invested with our nature, and brought to the level of our desires, yet invisible ? A certain conception through the senses thus takes place in the brain, which was not there before, and is transmitted to the judicial faculty, and added to the mental store. Gregory, who is so eloquent about God, says that the mind which is set upon getting beyond corporeal things, is incapable of doing it. For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are made visible through images.

Who first made an Image.

In the beginning God begot His only begotten Son, His word, the living image of Himself, the natural and unchangeable image of His eternity. And He made man after His own image and likeness. And Adam saw God, and heard the sound of His feet as He walked at even, and he hid in paradise. And Jacob saw and struggled with God. It is evident that God appeared to him in the form of a man. And Moses saw Him, and Isaias saw as it were the back of a man, and as a man seated on a throne. And Daniel saw the likeness of a man, and as the Son of Man coming to the ancient of days. No one saw the nature of God, but the type and image of what was to be. For the Son and Word of the invisible God, was to become man in truth, that He might be united to our nature, and be seen upon earth. Now all who looked upon the type and image of the future, worshipped it, as St Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: ' All these died according to faith, not having received the promises, but beholding them afar off, and saluting them.' Shall I not make an image of Him who took the nature of flesh for me ? Shall I not reverence and worship Him, through the honour and worship of His image ? Abraham saw not the nature of God, for no man ever saw God, but the image of God, and falling down he adored. Joshua saw the image of an angel, not as he is, for an angel is not visible to bodily eyes, and falling down he adored, and so did Daniel. Yet an angel is a creature, and servant, and minister of God, not God. And he worshipped the angel not as God, but as God's ministering spirit. And shall not I make images of Christ's friends? And shall I not worship them as the images of God's friends, not as gods ? Neither Joshua nor Daniel worshipped the angels they saw as gods. Neither do I worship the image as God, but through the image of the saints too, show my worship to God, because I honour His friends, and do them reverence. God did not unite Himself to the angelic nature, but to the human. He did not become an angel: He became a man in nature, and in truth. It is indeed Abraham's seed which He embraces, not the angel's.

The Son of God in person did not take the nature of the angels : He took the nature of man. The angels did not participate in the divine nature, but in working and in grace. Now, men do participate, and become partakers of the divine nature when they receive the holy Body of Christ and drink His Blood. For He is united in person to the Godhead, and two natures in the Body of Christ shared by us are united indissolubly in person, and we partake of the two natures, of the body bodily, and of the Godhead in spirit, or, rather, of each in both. We are made one, not in person, for first we have a person and then we are united by blending together the body and the blood. How are we not greater than the angels, if through fidelity to the commandments we keep this perfect union ? In itself our nature is far removed from the angels, on account of death and the heaviness of the body, but through God's goodness and its union with Him it has become higher than the angels. For angels stand by that nature with fear and trembling, as, in the person of Christ, it sits upon a throne of glory, and they will stand by in trembling at the judgment. According to Scripture they are not partakers of the divine glory. For they are all ministering spirits, being sent to minister because of those who are to be heirs of salvation, not that they shall reign together, nor that they shall be together glorified, nor that they shall sit at the table of the Father. The saints, on the contrary, are the children of God, the children of the kingdom, heirs of God, and co-heirs of Christ. Therefore, I honour the saints, and glorify the servants and friends and co-heirs of Christ: servants by nature, friends by their choice: friends and co-heirs by divine grace, as our Lord said in speaking to the Father.

The Church teaches, and has since Christ, that God, like an architect designing his own home, created man in His Own Image and Likeness with the aim of the Incarnation. Only when the Architect came and  the fullness of Godhead dwellt in the Sanctuary He had built, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without the Incarnation no image should not be made perfect, did we know what exactly His image is


"Before Abraham was, I AM."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #342 on: August 07, 2010, 09:40:44 AM »

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?

I will answer if you, who claim to know the fundaments of debates answer this:

is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
Or in other words, in all unsolved murders, the absence of evidence of the identity of the murderer is evidence that this identity is actually absent (and therefore the murder was committed by a person withouth identity)?

No, an argument from silence is unsound, proves nothing. BUT I admit your statement is obscure and perhaps you are asking "if I don't have it, does that prove I don't have it." I'd say yes.

Now you can answer:

Where in scripture does God say "image me"
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #343 on: August 07, 2010, 09:43:56 AM »

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.

You are going to need to clarify something here for me.
Jesus Christ is one Person. He has two natures - one divine, one human.

Your statements "The person of God the Son has not been seen, and is therefore not depictable" and "The Person, and infinite Being of God, are not visible to image" tell me that your understanding of "person of God the Son" is solely divine and that His body is just a body, nothing more. It does not appear that you believe His human nature to be as much of His Personhood as His divine nature. In an earlier post, I questioned your understanding of the Incarnation. I repeat that question.

When you answer "can the Three Divine Persons subsisting in the One infinite ocean of Essence that is God be imaged," then you will know what I said.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #344 on: August 07, 2010, 09:46:04 AM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?

Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.

Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship,  rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite. God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him, that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.

You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 09:49:04 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #345 on: August 07, 2010, 09:56:29 AM »

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."

Incorrect, only affirmative claims can be proved.

To illustrate: Prove to me a thrown stone won't fly into outer space and hit the moon.

You cannot prove it will not, that is impossible because its a negative, it might if thrown hard enough.

Make the claim affirmative, then the claim can be tested. The stone is thrown as hard as possible, and if it can't reach outer space, you proved the claim wrong.

I know God doesn't speak apart from Scripture since the apostles went to be with the LORD.

If you want to argue He does, then you must produce God's Word apart from scripture, that we can test to see if its really God's Word.




« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 09:57:40 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #346 on: August 07, 2010, 10:01:14 AM »

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.

Prediction fulfilled
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #347 on: August 07, 2010, 10:13:17 AM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?

Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.

Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship,  rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite.

God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him, that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.

You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.

It only becomes insulting if you start to think of Jesus as nothing more than a pile of flesh. An icon isn't the image of a nature, but that of a person. It's not a matter of trying to image Christ's humanity or His divinity like the two could be seperated, but imaging Christ the Person. He is a person, not a nature.

On a practical note, looking at an image Christ while praying can does help one to better focus their thoughts on Him.

So back to my question, veneration aside...

Is it ok to say that an image of Jesus is not an image of the Second Person of the Trinity?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #348 on: August 07, 2010, 10:53:44 AM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?

Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.

Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship,  rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite.

God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him, that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.

You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.

It only becomes insulting if you start to think of Jesus as nothing more than a pile of flesh. An icon isn't the image of a nature, but that of a person. It's not a matter of trying to image Christ's humanity or His divinity like the two could be seperated, but imaging Christ the Person. He is a person, not a nature.

On a practical note, looking at an image Christ while praying can does help one to better focus their thoughts on Him.

So back to my question, veneration aside...

Is it ok to say that an image of Jesus is not an image of the Second Person of the Trinity?

Incorrect, Jesus' Person is infinite, transcendent. You change that when you imagine Him as some image, that changes what is true, into a lie.

From the fire came the voice of the Lord: you hear the sound of words, but you do not see a form—only the sound! The phrasing of this sentence is made very dramatic in the Hebrew by the use of active participles (rendered in English by the present tense). This experience the Hebrews were not to forget. If in their most profoundly moving encounter with their God there was no physical representation or form of him, but only his voice, any attempt to represent God in form would be totally inadequate and misleading
Craigie, P. C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (133). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.



I don't "focus" on Jesus when communing with Him, I commune with Him, for He is in me and I in Him.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 10:58:19 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #349 on: August 07, 2010, 10:58:08 AM »

Whereas an icon would have misdirected attention away from Christ standing right there, with them.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God" (NKJV) "ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου" (1550 Stephanus New Testament). image = εικων (icon)
Something about your statement doesn't seem quite right: "an icon would have misdirected attention away from the icon standing right there". I hope you're not trying to convince me of anything here.

Non sequitur, Christ is not like one of the icons produced in your icon factories.

I happen to speak Aramaic, our Lord's language, in which God the Word clothed His words of eternal life.  I can assure you, your King James Version doesn't sound anything like the Aramaic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWyJ-Gd8us&feature=fvsr
But that doesn't prevent anyone from saying the KJV is God's words in red, no?

Quote
He is an icon of God in that He is the image of God, but this doesn't apply to His flesh, only to His Person. Context proves that, it speaks of the Icon creating all things, that was before He was incarnate.

LOL. It doesn't even say that in the context of the verse. "Firstborn of All Creation": He of course wasn't a "of creation" until He was Incarnate. Or are you repeating the error of Arius too, saying that there was a time when He was not?  And before He was incarnate He was as invisible as "the invisible God," let alone the problem of an invisible image, an oxymoron. As St. John of Damascus, quoting St. John Chrysostom's Third commentary on the Church's understanding of Colossians, states: "The image of what is invisible, were it also invisible, would cease to be an image. An image, as far as it is an image, should be kept inviolably by us, owing to the likeness it represents"

Quote
Moreover, unlike your detestable images,

Remember what happened to Miriam and Belshazzar: when you detest the Holy Icons, you detest those therein.

"He that heareth you heareth Me and he that despiseth you despiseth Me and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me...render therefore unto God the things which be God's."

Quote
Christ is Person, who functions in the divine economy as "the face of God," that "side" of infinite God that condescends to enter the realm of the finite, to reveal God:

KJV  2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2Co 4:6 KJV)

So does Perssonism teach Modalism too?  Did Christ become a person only in the Incarnation?  When He became finite, did He cease to be infinite?

Quote
In other words, had Moses been allowed to see God's face here, he would have seen Christ:

 19 Then He said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
 20 But He said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live."
 21 And the LORD said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock.
 22 "So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by.
 23 "Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen."
 (Exo 33:19-23 NKJ)

On Mount Tabor, Moses was allowed to see God's face, seeing Christ. Or are you calling the Evangelists liars?

St. John, citing prior authority of the Church:
Quote
And Moses saw Him, and Isaias saw as it were the back of a man, and as a man seated on a throne. And Daniel saw the likeness of a man, and as the Son of Man coming to the ancient of days. No one saw the nature of God, but the type and image of what was to be. For the Son and Word of the invisible God, was to become man in truth, that He might be united to our nature, and be seen upon earth. Now all who looked upon the type and image of the future, worshipped it, as St Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: ' All these died according to faith, not having received the promises, but beholding them afar off, and saluting them.'.
and
Quote
Receive the united testimony of Scripture and the fathers to show you that images and their worship are no new invention, but the ancient tradition of the Church. In the holy Gospel of St Matthew our Lord called His disciples blessed, and with them all those who followed their example and walked in their footsteps in these words: ' Blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. For, amen I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them.' We also desire to see as much as we may. 'We see now in a glass, darkly,' and in image, and are blessed. God Himself first made an image, and showed forth images. For He made the first man after His own image. And Abraham, Moses, and Isaias, and all the prophets saw images of God, not the substance of God. The burning bush was an image of God's Mother, and as Moses was about to approach it, God said: ' Put off the. shoes from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.' Now if the spot on which Moses saw an image of Our Lady was holy, how much more the image itself? And not only is it holy, but I venture to say it is the holy of holies. When the Pharisees asked our Lord why Moses had allowed a bill of divorce, He answered : ' On account of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wife, but in the beginning it was not so.' And I say to you that Moses, through the children of Israel's hardness of heart, and knowing their proclivity to idolatry, forbade them to make images. We are not in the same case. We have taken a firm footing on the rock of faith, being enriched with the light of God's friendship.

Quote
Christ is the form of God He condescended appear in the finite realm

When He became finite, did He cease to be infinite?

Quote
of the creatures in heaven:

Heaven? "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same;For or verily He took not on Him the nature of angels but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." Heb. 2:14, 16
St. John, citing prior authority of the Church:
Quote
Abraham saw not the nature of God, for no man ever saw God, but the image of God, and falling down he adored. Joshua saw the image of an angel, not as he is, for an angel is not visible to bodily eyes, and falling down he adored, and so did Daniel. Yet an angel is a creature, and servant, and minister of God, not God. And he worshipped the angel not as God, but as God's ministering spirit. And shall not I make images of Christ's friends? And shall I not worship them as the images of God's friends, not as gods ? Neither Joshua nor Daniel worshipped the angels they saw as gods. Neither do I worship the image as God, but through the image of the saints too, show my worship to God, because I honour His friends, and do them reverence. God did not unite Himself to the angelic nature, but to the human. He did not become an angel: He became a man in nature, and in truth. It is indeed Abraham's seed which He embraces, not the angel's.

The Son of God in person did not take the nature of the angels : He took the nature of man. The angels did not participate in the divine nature, but in working and in grace. Now, men do participate, and become partakers of the divine nature when they receive the holy Body of Christ and drink His Blood. For He is united in person to the Godhead, and two natures in the Body of Christ shared by us are united indissolubly in person, and we partake of the two natures, of the body bodily, and of the Godhead in spirit, or, rather, of each in both. We are made one, not in person, for first we have a person and then we are united by blending together the body and the blood. How are we not greater than the angels, if through fidelity to the commandments we keep this perfect union ? In itself our nature is far removed from the angels, on account of death and the heaviness of the body, but through God's goodness and its union with Him it has become higher than the angels. For angels stand by that nature with fear and trembling, as, in the person of Christ, it sits upon a throne of glory, and they will stand by in trembling at the judgment. According to Scripture they are not partakers of the divine glory. For they are all ministering spirits, being sent to minister because of those who are to be heirs of salvation, not that they shall reign together, nor that they shall be together glorified, nor that they shall sit at the table of the Father. The saints, on the contrary, are the children of God, the children of the kingdom, heirs of God, and co-heirs of Christ. Therefore, I honour the saints, and glorify the servants and friends and co-heirs of Christ: servants by nature, friends by their choice: friends and co-heirs by divine grace, as our Lord said in speaking to the Father.

Do you agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who cite the Bible as proof that the Archangel Michael is Christ? or something similar? There are several gnostic canons which so claim. Maybe you should look into them, and leave the Church's Bible alone.

Quote
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, (Phi 2:6 NKJ)

I'd have to know about this "angelic" Christology of Perssonism before addressing your miscitation.

Quote
Your icons cannot say that, therefore they are not the same.

As St. John demonstrated, they do not have to, nor do they have to be:
So, you think that God is jealous of His own image?

St. John demonstrates otherwise:
Quote
Where do you find in the Old Testament or in the Gospel the Trinity, or consubstantiality, or one Godhead, or three persons,* or the one substance of Christ, or His two natures, expressed in so many words ? Still, as they are contained in what Scripture does say, and defined by the holy fathers, we receive them and anathematise those who do not. I prove to you that in the old law God commanded images to be made, first of all the tabernacle and everything in it. Then in the gospel our Lord Himself said to those who asked Him, tempting, whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, ' Bring me a coin, and they showed Him a penny. And He asked them whose likeness it was, and they said to Him, Caesar's; and He said, ' Give to Ceesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's.' As the coin bears the likeness of Caesar, it is his, and you should give it to Caesar. So the image bears the likeness of Christ, and you should give it Him, for it is His.

If men worship kings subject to corruption, who are often bad and impious, and those ruling or deputed' in their name, as the holy apostle says, ' Be subject to princes and powers,' and again, ' Give to all their due, to one honour, to another fear,' and our Lord, ' Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's,' how much more should we worship the King of Kings? He alone is God by nature.

The image of the king is also called the king, and there are not two kings in consequence. Neither is power divided, nor is glory distributed. Just as the reigning power over us is one, so is our homage one, not many, and the honour given to the image reaches back to the original. What the image is in the one case as a representation, that the Son is by His humanity, and as in art likeness is according to form, so in the divine and incommensurable nature union is effected in the indwelling Godhead.

Commentary.—If the image of the king is the king, the image of Christ is Christ, and the image of a saint the saint, and if power is not divided nor glory distributed, honouring the image becomes honouring the one who is set forth in image.

If, in common parlance, the king's image is called the king, and ,the honour shown to the image redounds to' the original, as holy Basil says, why should the image not be honoured and worshipped, not as God, but as the image of God Incarnate?

He who truly loves a friend or the king, and especially his benefactor, if he sees that benefactor's son, or his staff, or his chair, or his crown, or his house, or his servant, he holds them fast in his embrace, and if he honours his benefactor the king, how much more God.

If you despise the royal garment, do you not despise the king himself? Do you not see that if you despise the image of the king, you despise the original ? Do you not know that if a man shows contempt for an image of wood or a statue of metal, he is not judged as if he had vented himself on lifeless matter, but as showing contempt for the king ? Dishonour shown to an image of the king is dishonour shown to the king.

So we are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but not to render unto God that which is God's, because God is jealous of His Own glory?

Quote
Your argument rests upon the fallacy of equivocation, the word icon may be the same as found in the Bible, but the meaning you give it has changed,

That is your assertion.  The unbroken Tradition of the Church from the time St. Paul wrote those words for the Church, as the spokesman for the Church, to our Church at Colossae, witnesses otherwise. So too the archaelogist's spade, which turns up in every early Church icons.
Of course, in Pessonism, seeing is NOT believing.

Quote
to become detestable images Christ would barf at, if still on earth.
If still on earth?
My point is elegant, Orthodox apologetic proves much more than they want when they liken icons to pictures.

People talk to pictures only if the person pictured is absent.

Therefore, talking to icon implies the prototype is not present, otherwise the icon would be unnecessary.

So icons of Christ testify He is not present.

As Christ is always present indwelling a Christian, icons testify the venerator doesn't have Christ indwelling.

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom 8:9 KJV)

Therefore, the veneration of Jesus Christ via an icon proves the venerater doesn't have Him indwelling and therefore is not a Christian.
Therefore, since Perssonism believes that Christ is not on Earth, either Perssonists are a) in outer space (the Mormons believe that their god is on a planet called Kobal, etc.) or b) do not have Christ on earth, and hence are not Christian.
It is impossible to read the context and conclude
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Mat. 7:1-2).

On the barf, consider Miriam and Belshazzar's fate.

Quote
As Jesus didn't want His similitude imaged in Moses' Day, He certainly wouldn't want His incarnate Body imaged.

Still clinging to the veil of Moses like a security blanket.  Then He would not have become incarnate.

Quote
Or don't you realize Jesus is YHWH, the Word of God, the One who comes to man, to reveal God, or as here, rain down fire upon Sodom from YHWH the Father:

KJV  Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD(YHWH) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD(YHWH) out of heaven;
 (Gen 19:24 KJV)

Is that the same YHWH who stopped by to see Abraham?
[/img]
Yeah, that's Him. I recognize Him from the line up. "I AM...He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 11:01:40 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,835


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #350 on: August 07, 2010, 11:00:19 AM »


Where in scripture does God say "image me"

If making an image of God violates the Bible, than we shouldn't make them at all, not even the pictures of Christ I pasted earlier that you would put on the walls of your house.

Do you think it would have been OK to make an image of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity before the Incarnation?  Would Moses have been OK with the pictures I pasted earlier?
Logged

Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #351 on: August 07, 2010, 11:09:28 AM »


Where in scripture does God say "image me"

If making an image of God violates the Bible, than we shouldn't make them at all, not even the pictures of Christ I pasted earlier that you would put on the walls of your house.

Do you think it would have been OK to make an image of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity before the Incarnation?  Would Moses have been OK with the pictures I pasted earlier?

Your argument equivocates, The image God forbids aren't just harmless pictures of people, such as Jesus Christ.

He forbade images of Himself.

No one believes paintings of Christ image Jesus or represent His Transcendent Diety...they are just paintings.




« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 11:10:07 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #352 on: August 07, 2010, 11:09:50 AM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?

Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.

Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship,  rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite.

God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him, that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.

You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.

It only becomes insulting if you start to think of Jesus as nothing more than a pile of flesh. An icon isn't the image of a nature, but that of a person. It's not a matter of trying to image Christ's humanity or His divinity like the two could be seperated, but imaging Christ the Person. He is a person, not a nature.

On a practical note, looking at an image Christ while praying can does help one to better focus their thoughts on Him.

So back to my question, veneration aside...

Is it ok to say that an image of Jesus is not an image of the Second Person of the Trinity?

Incorrect, Jesus' Person is infinite, transcendent. You change that when you imagine Him as some image, that changes what is true, into a lie.

So He never took flesh and dwellt among us, taking on the finite likeness of man?

Quote
From the fire came the voice of the Lord: you hear the sound of words, but you do not see a form—only the sound! The phrasing of this sentence is made very dramatic in the Hebrew by the use of active participles (rendered in English by the present tense). This experience the Hebrews were not to forget. If in their most profoundly moving encounter with their God there was no physical representation or form of him, but only his voice, any attempt to represent God in form would be totally inadequate and misleading
Craigie, P. C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (133). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.



I don't "focus" on Jesus when communing with Him, I commune with Him, for He is in me and I in Him.

If you keep denying Christ is come in the flesh, that's not the Spirit of Christ in you that you are communing with.

Craigie. 1976. Yes, that certainly trumps the unbroken chain of the Fathers of the Church from 33 to the present day. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #353 on: August 07, 2010, 11:11:41 AM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?

Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.

Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship,  rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite.

God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him, that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.

You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.

It only becomes insulting if you start to think of Jesus as nothing more than a pile of flesh. An icon isn't the image of a nature, but that of a person. It's not a matter of trying to image Christ's humanity or His divinity like the two could be seperated, but imaging Christ the Person. He is a person, not a nature.

On a practical note, looking at an image Christ while praying can does help one to better focus their thoughts on Him.

So back to my question, veneration aside...

Is it ok to say that an image of Jesus is not an image of the Second Person of the Trinity?

Incorrect, Jesus' Person is infinite, transcendent. You change that when you imagine Him as some image, that changes what is true, into a lie.

So He never took flesh and dwellt among us, taking on the finite likeness of man?

Quote
From the fire came the voice of the Lord: you hear the sound of words, but you do not see a form—only the sound! The phrasing of this sentence is made very dramatic in the Hebrew by the use of active participles (rendered in English by the present tense). This experience the Hebrews were not to forget. If in their most profoundly moving encounter with their God there was no physical representation or form of him, but only his voice, any attempt to represent God in form would be totally inadequate and misleading
Craigie, P. C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (133). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.



I don't "focus" on Jesus when communing with Him, I commune with Him, for He is in me and I in Him.

If you keep denying Christ is come in the flesh, that's not the Spirit of Christ in you that you are communing with.

Craigie. 1976. Yes, that certainly trumps the unbroken chain of the Fathers of the Church from 33 to the present day. Roll Eyes

And you have lengthy conversations with yourself accusing me of all sorts of heretical belief. Its amusing, but odd.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,835


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #354 on: August 07, 2010, 11:12:39 AM »


Where in scripture does God say "image me"

If making an image of God violates the Bible, than we shouldn't make them at all, not even the pictures of Christ I pasted earlier that you would put on the walls of your house.

Do you think it would have been OK to make an image of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity before the Incarnation?  Would Moses have been OK with the pictures I pasted earlier?

Your argument equivocates, The image God forbids aren't just harmless pictures of people, such as Jesus Christ.

He forbade images of Himself.

No one believes paintings of Christ image Jesus or represent His Transcendent Diety...they are just paintings.

So you are saying that images of God the Father are not OK, but images of Jesus Christ are OK.  I think a lot of Orthodox will agree with you.

I thought what you were objecting to were images of Christ.

So images of Christ are OK?
Logged

Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #355 on: August 07, 2010, 11:15:53 AM »


Where in scripture does God say "image me"

If making an image of God violates the Bible, than we shouldn't make them at all, not even the pictures of Christ I pasted earlier that you would put on the walls of your house.

Do you think it would have been OK to make an image of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity before the Incarnation?  Would Moses have been OK with the pictures I pasted earlier?

Sorry about the double post, must have clicked Quote instead of Modify:

Your argument equivocates, The image God forbids isn't the same as harmless paintings of people, such as Jesus Christ.

He forbade images of Himself.

No one believes paintings of Christ image Jesus or represent His Transcendent Deity...they are just paintings, inaccurate, figurative as it were. No one knows what He looked like.

IN other words, if someone spit or defaced the painting, I would not be angry because they defaced the painting, its not Him at all.

It is the act, the attitude behind it that would offend me.

The painting is nothing, I would trash a defaced painting of Jesus, not consider it anything but trash. Its not Him, doesn't represent Him, and most likely doesn't even look like Him.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 11:20:50 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #356 on: August 07, 2010, 11:26:15 AM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?

Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.

Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship,  rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite.

God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him, that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.

You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.

It only becomes insulting if you start to think of Jesus as nothing more than a pile of flesh. An icon isn't the image of a nature, but that of a person. It's not a matter of trying to image Christ's humanity or His divinity like the two could be seperated, but imaging Christ the Person. He is a person, not a nature.

On a practical note, looking at an image Christ while praying can does help one to better focus their thoughts on Him.

So back to my question, veneration aside...

Is it ok to say that an image of Jesus is not an image of the Second Person of the Trinity?

Incorrect, Jesus' Person is infinite, transcendent. You change that when you imagine Him as some image, that changes what is true, into a lie.

So when the apostles looked at Jesus, they weren't looking at the Second Person of the Trinity?

When you look at a picture of someone you know, do you think of the person, or just their body?

Quote
From the fire came the voice of the Lord: you hear the sound of words, but you do not see a form—only the sound! The phrasing of this sentence is made very dramatic in the Hebrew by the use of active participles (rendered in English by the present tense). This experience the Hebrews were not to forget. If in their most profoundly moving encounter with their God there was no physical representation or form of him, but only his voice, any attempt to represent God in form would be totally inadequate and misleading
Craigie, P. C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (133). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Because they only heard a voice and did not see a form. The apostles saw a form.

Quote
I don't "focus" on Jesus when communing with Him, I commune with Him, for He is in me and I in Him.

So what do you focus on when communing with Christ if not the one you are communing with? Are you focused on something or someone else?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,524



« Reply #357 on: August 07, 2010, 12:25:11 PM »

When you answer "can the Three Divine Persons subsisting in the One infinite ocean of Essence that is God be imaged," then you will know what I said.
Since I saw the quotation marks, I assumed that you were quoting something. I googled your exact question. The very first link provided by Google was excellent. However, I rather think it wasn't you said, but I am quite willing to let it stand as my answer. I hope you (and others!) check out the answer you provided for me.
http://3lotus.com/en/Christianity/Oneness-of-God.htm
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #358 on: August 07, 2010, 12:30:07 PM »

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.

So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?

Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.

Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship,  rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite.

God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him, that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.

You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.

It only becomes insulting if you start to think of Jesus as nothing more than a pile of flesh. An icon isn't the image of a nature, but that of a person. It's not a matter of trying to image Christ's humanity or His divinity like the two could be seperated, but imaging Christ the Person. He is a person, not a nature.

On a practical note, looking at an image Christ while praying can does help one to better focus their thoughts on Him.

So back to my question, veneration aside...

Is it ok to say that an image of Jesus is not an image of the Second Person of the Trinity?

Incorrect, Jesus' Person is infinite, transcendent. You change that when you imagine Him as some image, that changes what is true, into a lie.

So when the apostles looked at Jesus, they weren't looking at the Second Person of the Trinity?

When you look at a picture of someone you know, do you think of the person, or just their body?

Quote
From the fire came the voice of the Lord: you hear the sound of words, but you do not see a form—only the sound! The phrasing of this sentence is made very dramatic in the Hebrew by the use of active participles (rendered in English by the present tense). This experience the Hebrews were not to forget. If in their most profoundly moving encounter with their God there was no physical representation or form of him, but only his voice, any attempt to represent God in form would be totally inadequate and misleading
Craigie, P. C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (133). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Because they only heard a voice and did not see a form. The apostles saw a form.

Quote
I don't "focus" on Jesus when communing with Him, I commune with Him, for He is in me and I in Him.

So what do you focus on when communing with Christ if not the one you are communing with? Are you focused on something or someone else?


Of course they were looking at God the Eternal Son, and of course when I picture someone I know I think of them, not a body part, and of course none of this has any relevance to Orthodox icons, you believe they have a prototype...

That dissimilarity is an incompatible property rending your icon different than pictures or speaking to Jesus directly, and makes them non analogous for your comparison.

When they talked to Jesus directly, or when I view a picture, neither of us imagine our "veneration" is going through the object of our attention, to someone else.

Therefore these are NOT analogous, and your conclusion then is non sequitur, unsound.


I am in Jesus and He is in me, I don't focus on an image of Him, just as I wouldn't focus on an image of someone in the room with me whom I couldn't see...I would just talk to him.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 12:35:37 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #359 on: August 07, 2010, 12:33:30 PM »

This may be a silly question, but here goes:  if no one responds to the OP's satisfaction, what's the worst that could happen?

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

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

Eight pages and four days later, he hasn't run out of his repetoire, and the Internet is still polluted.

I think I'll quit now, go outside, do some gardening, and prepare for Vespers.

What say the rest of you?   Cool
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 12:34:54 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Tags: icons Perssonism sola scriptura this again cheval mort utter futility circular reasoning doesn't give up 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.275 seconds with 72 queries.