OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 12:10:48 AM *
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 40789 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #540 on: August 10, 2010, 09:22:11 AM »

You keep going back to this argument, ignoring outright all the points made about how it is not applicable in this discussion.  Oh, well - you're making a poor apologetic because of it.  If you're going to disagree with the premise of that thread, you may as well do so in that thread.

It was in this thread you asked me to check it out, so I answered you in this thread.

I told you I didn't read past those opening words, because it begged the question.

This sentiment only belies that you are not up to the challenge of your self-proclaimed mission.  Too bad.

THIS thread is discussing Deut 4: throughout, and my RICH apologetic is standing tall, undiminished by the evasions and iconography posted.

Your poor apologetic has been shredded in multiple places, and your response is to repeat it again, rather than finding material to patch it up.  It had a promising beginning, with multiple biblical angles; but once it was discovered to be founded on some of the poorest exegesis (rather, "great" isegesis) we've seen on this site, it was rather simple to slay it.  In the world of giants, your dwarfish argument is unable to claim the throne.

I'm wondering why you're surprised that icons would be posted in a thread about iconography.  It is a strange thing, and yet you've brought it up multiple times - you probably haven't done this before (debating True Christians on Ancient Christian Traditions), which is why you seem so surprised by it.

THAT thread should have been against the rules, the use of my name makes it a personal attack.

You are still unaware of what a "personal attack is."  Too bad.  The use of your name is only to clearly attribute real teachings that you have said to you, just as when someone says "Palamism," they are referring to the doctrines and teachings revealed and clarified by St. Gregory Palamas.

I reserve the right to go there in the future, to slay the dragon...but for now, this thread is all I want to handle.

Based on your track record, the above should probably read, "I reserve the right to go there in the future, to be slayed as a dragon...but for now, this thread is all I am unable to handle."

Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #541 on: August 10, 2010, 09:25:57 AM »

Who is the prototype of the serpent?

It depends; the prototype of the form is the serpent, the prototype of the power is God.

In theology (also science), for conclusions to be sound, one does not compare dissimilar things.

I suppose this all depends on how you conclude things to be dissimilar, a charge that must be proven and not postulated.

To illustrate, you cannot prove what an apple tastes like, by biting into an orange, the incompatible properties relevant to taste, make the comparison unsound.

Well, to a point, but one can make negative assertions about the taste of an apple through the experience of the orange (e.g. "the apple does not have the citrus tang of the orange," "the apple is not soft like the orange," etc.).  To a skilled theologian or scientist, statements of fact about one thing can indeed be made using a dissimilar thing as a reference point.  However, since that is not what I am doing, I do not know what you are so "hung up" on.  See my first point above.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
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 #542 on: August 10, 2010, 09:31:20 AM »

You keep going back to this argument, ignoring outright all the points made about how it is not applicable in this discussion.  Oh, well - you're making a poor apologetic because of it.  If you're going to disagree with the premise of that thread, you may as well do so in that thread.

It was in this thread you asked me to check it out, so I answered you in this thread.

I told you I didn't read past those opening words, because it begged the question.

This sentiment only belies that you are not up to the challenge of your self-proclaimed mission.  Too bad.

THIS thread is discussing Deut 4: throughout, and my RICH apologetic is standing tall, undiminished by the evasions and iconography posted.

Your poor apologetic has been shredded in multiple places, and your response is to repeat it again, rather than finding material to patch it up.  It had a promising beginning, with multiple biblical angles; but once it was discovered to be founded on some of the poorest exegesis (rather, "great" isegesis) we've seen on this site, it was rather simple to slay it.  In the world of giants, your dwarfish argument is unable to claim the throne.

I'm wondering why you're surprised that icons would be posted in a thread about iconography.  It is a strange thing, and yet you've brought it up multiple times - you probably haven't done this before (debating True Christians on Ancient Christian Traditions), which is why you seem so surprised by it.

THAT thread should have been against the rules, the use of my name makes it a personal attack.

You are still unaware of what a "personal attack is."  Too bad.  The use of your name is only to clearly attribute real teachings that you have said to you, just as when someone says "Palamism," they are referring to the doctrines and teachings revealed and clarified by St. Gregory Palamas.

I reserve the right to go there in the future, to slay the dragon...but for now, this thread is all I want to handle.

Based on your track record, the above should probably read, "I reserve the right to go there in the future, to be slayed as a dragon...but for now, this thread is all I am unable to handle."



I was warned about shortening John of Damascus, any nickname of him is prohibited.

Perssonism is a disparaging nickname referring to my statements, while the shortened form of John of Damascus wasn't at all, yet I was warned.

BUT don't misunderstand, I prefer unmoderated boards where people call me all sorts of things...I don't care...often I consider it all joy. So leave the thread there, don't delete it, I reserve the right to go there eventually.

You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.





« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 09:35:43 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)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #543 on: August 10, 2010, 09:33:36 AM »

You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.[/i]

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.

The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.
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 #544 on: August 10, 2010, 09:45:11 AM »

You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.[/i]

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.

The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.


They beg the question what the apostolic church believed, they are too far removed.

Its too hard to prove a negative, therefore the burden of proof is on those who affirm icon veneration in the apostolic church.

The best I can do is point out there isn't any recorded.

I can suppose it didn't exist as its not mentioned at all, either for or against. But that isn't proof one way or the other.

So in any court of law, the burden of proof is on those who claim there is icon veneration occurring in the apostolic church.

An analogy, in the USA, one does not have to prove innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 09:51:58 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)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #545 on: August 10, 2010, 09:53:56 AM »

You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.[/i]

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.

The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.


They beg the question what the apostolic church believed, they are too far removed.



As LBK noted:

Quote
Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul?

The disciple of the Apostle Paul isn't early enough/apostolic enough for you?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
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 #546 on: August 10, 2010, 09:56:51 AM »

You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.[/i]

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.

The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.


They beg the question what the apostolic church believed, they are too far removed.



As LBK noted:

Quote
Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul?

The disciple of the Apostle Paul isn't early enough/apostolic enough for you?

What's the quote, is it the real St Dionysius?

In the early 6th century, a series of famous writings of a mystical nature, employing Neoplatonic language to elucidate Christian theological and mystical ideas, was ascribed to the Areopagite.[2]  They have long been recognized as pseudepigrapha and are now attributed to "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite".

Dionysius was also popularly mis-identified with the martyr of Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris, Saint Denis.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_the_Areopagite
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 09:57:42 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)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #547 on: August 10, 2010, 10:02:38 AM »

You want proof that icons were venerated since the earliest time of Christianity? Look no further than the veneration of the Mandylion, also known as The Image Not Made By Hands, also known as Acheiropoeitos.

Christ Himself made this image, by pressing a cloth to His face. Miraculously, an image of His face was imprinted on the cloth. This cloth was sent to King Abgar of the Osroenes, who was stricken by a terrible disease, and who had sent word to the Apostles imploring them to send Jesus to him. The Lord was, for whatever reason, unable to travel to the king, so He sent the cloth. By praying before this miraculous image, an image of the Lord Himself, the king was healed.

Christ Himself made an icon of Himself. Alfred, deal with it.
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 #548 on: August 10, 2010, 10:08:19 AM »

You want proof that icons were venerated since the earliest time of Christianity? Look no further than the veneration of the Mandylion, also known as The Image Not Made By Hands, also known as Acheiropoeitos.

Christ Himself made this image, by pressing a cloth to His face. Miraculously, an image of His face was imprinted on the cloth. This cloth was sent to King Abgar of the Osroenes, who was stricken by a terrible disease, and who had sent word to the Apostles imploring them to send Jesus to him. The Lord was, for whatever reason, unable to travel to the king, so He sent the cloth. By praying before this miraculous image, an image of the Lord Himself, the king was healed.

Christ Himself made an icon of Himself. Alfred, deal with it.

That's not an sub apostolic early church father or a Bible writer.

It has all the appearance of myth.

Icon veneration is central to Orthodox worship, you can hardly be silent about them for long, like breathing, its something the Orthodox must do to live.

Therefore the absence of icon veneration in the NT and sub apostolic church fathers is weighty evidence icon veneration didn't exist in the apostolic church.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 10:12:26 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)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #549 on: August 10, 2010, 10:21:31 AM »

I was warned about shortening John of Damascus, any nickname of him is prohibited.

Academic discourse - it's not a difficult concept, my friend.

Perssonism is a disparaging nickname referring to my statements, while the shortened form of John of Damascus wasn't at all, yet I was warned.

I don't consider it a disparaging nickname - it is a clear attribution of a unique theological position (especially on this forum) to the person who postulated it, something that has been done on a number of occasions throughout history.

BUT don't misunderstand, I prefer unmoderated boards where people call me all sorts of things...I don't care...often I consider it all joy. So leave the thread there, don't delete it, I reserve the right to go there eventually.

I hope you do.

You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.

It is clearly not evasion in this case, as we have never pointed to a library, but rather a series of texts which are brief and to the point.

I don't think you're too familiar with academic debate, are you?  In academic debate, we use tracts and not one-line-quotes to prove and disprove points; we synthesize the information to support or refute arguments; we read materials in the hope of finding support or weapon.  And, in the end, we acknowledge truth.  You have been presented with a number of relatively short quotes (a few paragraphs here and there) which you have refused to read and refused to respond to - in that context, it is impossible to continue a dialogue with you, since you incessantly insist on dictating terms of debate that do not match what the rest of us are accustomed to in civilized and academic debate.  I find it incredible, then, that in the face of this refusal to conform to usual academic standards, that you continue to assert some sort of superior argument, even though it has been debunked and de-clawed and euthanized  multiple times.  And when this is pointed out to you, you simply throw your hands up and scream, "prove it!"  My patience wears thin with your anorexic apologetic and your mule-ish refusal to read what others have posted.  There are dozens of posts you have not responded to, multiple arguments that you have admittedly skipped over because you couldn't stomach the first lines of the post, and, simply, too many unpatched holes in your argument to render it seaworthy anymore.

If I have the couple of hours required to point out all the flaws in your argument that have been exposed by others, I will.  But I can guarantee that you will not read the lengthy post that will result, and you will not address the points made therein.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
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 #550 on: August 10, 2010, 10:28:12 AM »

You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.


We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.



Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.


Fact is, nothing I've said has been refuted...its all been buried under icons, ad hominem, and tangential material.

That is why you won't copy paste my argument with its precise refutation...none were given.

You are at a loss how to respond...admit it.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 10:33:06 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)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #551 on: August 10, 2010, 10:34:50 AM »

Therefore the absence of icon veneration in the NT and sub apostolic church fathers is weighty evidence icon veneration didn't exist in the apostolic church.

There are plenty of icons in the Roman catacombs. Some date even to the first century, well within the apostolic period you keep mentioning. And the walls of the church at Dura Europos are covered in icons.

Deal with it.
Logged
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 #552 on: August 10, 2010, 10:36:15 AM »

You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.




We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.



Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
Like you have evaded reading St. John of Damscus, and yet claim to refute him.

What, you don't know how to click a link?  too hard?

Of course, most those who read these posts of pollution are not so handicapped, so they will go there and clear there mind of the veil of Moses.

You are acting towards Father like a student who asks the liberarian for help when he really wants the librarian to do the research and write the term paper for him.
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 #553 on: August 10, 2010, 10:37:32 AM »

Therefore the absence of icon veneration in the NT and sub apostolic church fathers is weighty evidence icon veneration didn't exist in the apostolic church.

There are plenty of icons in the Roman catacombs. Some date even to the first century, well within the apostolic period you keep mentioning. And the walls of the church at Dura Europos are covered in icons.

Deal with it.

They beg the question whether they were venerated as the Orthodox do their icons.

I have paintings...if thousands of years from now, an archeologist found them and said I venerated images, he would be sorely mistaken.

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 #554 on: August 10, 2010, 10:38:39 AM »

which appear at the above link, on the more appropriate thread for discussing your views.

Alfred, here is the link: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

It is a thread discussing Icons in general, not tied to St. John of Damascus.  You will find in it fertile ground.

I only read "There are different kinds of image" and had to stop. It begs the question that all kinds of icon of God are forbidden:

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

From the thread in question:
Alfred seems to find the incarnation horribly inconvenient.

An analogy:

"There are different kinds of sacrifice" begs the question that all sacrifice that might be leavened is forbidden to be brought to the Lord.

LXE  Leviticus 2:11 Ye shall not leaven any sacrifice (pasan thusian) which ye shall bring to the Lord (Lev 2:11 LXE)

"Eating the Passover (sacrificial lamb)" is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX) for celebrating Passover, but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover.  Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics.  Which is a problem, because artos is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare artos is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.
As Pravoslavbob pointed out, St. Paul is speaking in metaphors, actually turning them on their head.  To not see that, does violence to the text.
Per Paul, He is both.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?
because He has the leaven of divinity which He shares with us as the Bread that has come down from Heaven.  And comes down: hence the iconostais where the Royal Doors (the middle doors, which open up to the altar) are flanked by the icon of Christ and the Theotokos-how He came down-on the one side and on the other-the Pantocrator "Christ Almighty"-how He will come down on the other.  In the middle is the altar, on which He comes down in the Eucharist, now: an image that dates from the days of Justin Martyr (from 2nd century Palestine). Christ Himself identifies His Kingdom with leaven.   He nowhere uses the rabbinic metaphor of leaven=sin. Nor, for that matter, does the rest of the NT.  And the Church, the New Lump leavened by Christ has always had as her praxis the use of the new leaven in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the true Passover sacrifice sacrificed for us.  No, St. Paul does NOT identify Christ and the Eucharist with unleavened bread.  Otherwise he would have used azyma instead of artos in Chapter 10, and we would be speaking of the "breaking of the mazzo" instead of the "breaking of the bread."  St. Paul, his friend St. Ignatius, their follower St. John and the rest of us have held to the symbolism that Christ Himself teaches on leaven in the Gospels.  As for Judaising symbolism

This prohibition did not change with the New Testament:

NKJ  Romans 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image(eikonos) made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Rom 1:23 NKJ)

From the thread in question:
Rom 1:19 That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Rom. 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the icon of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
16:25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.

It is sophistry to claim Christ's incarnate body was not corruptible therefore this doesn't apply, Deut 4:16 forbade "any kind of icon" in the likeness of male human flesh, corruptible or not.

The reading for Tranfiguration: 2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
And from the thread in question:
2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
3:1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:22Professing himself to be wise, he became a fool, 28And even as he did not like to retain God in his knowledge, God gave him over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;(paraphrased).

It is the sophistry of the veil of Moses that insists that Deutroomy bans the Holy Icons.

All who image Jesus to worship Him thereby deny Jesus is God, for Deut 4:16 expressly rules out every possible image of God for worship.
Yes, the Deuteronomy mantra of Perssonism. We're still not worshipping your sacred cow.

All who image Jesus to worship Him claiming His Incarnate flesh has made His similitude sensible thereby deny Jesus came in human flesh as all icons in the likeness of human flesh are forbidden in Deut 4:16.
The iconoclast mantra of Perssonism, often repeated, never substantiated.
The Word took flesh and dwellt among us, and we behold His glory, the glory of the icon of the invisible God, Who took the likeness of man, in Which it was the good pleasure of the Father for the fullness of the Godhead to dwell therein, so that seeing Him we see God. John 1: 14, 14:9; Colossians 1:15, 19.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 10:40:34 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 #555 on: August 10, 2010, 10:40:10 AM »

You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.




We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.



Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
Like you have evaded reading St. John of Damscus, and yet claim to refute him.

What, you don't know how to click a link?  too hard?

Of course, most those who read these posts of pollution are not so handicapped, so they will go there and clear there mind of the veil of Moses.

You are acting towards Father like a student who asks the liberarian for help when he really wants the librarian to do the research and write the term paper for him.

Evasion. Copy paste my precise argument, and its precise refutation...

If that is found everywhere in this thread and elsewhere, it should be easy for you to do.

Do it now and prove I've been refuted, or admit not one of you has addressed my arguments.

I don't mind...I trust God's elect will be made aware of the truth.
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 #556 on: August 10, 2010, 10:43:26 AM »

which appear at the above link, on the more appropriate thread for discussing your views.

Alfred, here is the link: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

It is a thread discussing Icons in general, not tied to St. John of Damascus.  You will find in it fertile ground.

I only read "There are different kinds of image" and had to stop. It begs the question that all kinds of icon of God are forbidden:

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

From the thread in question:
Alfred seems to find the incarnation horribly inconvenient.

An analogy:

"There are different kinds of sacrifice" begs the question that all sacrifice that might be leavened is forbidden to be brought to the Lord.

LXE  Leviticus 2:11 Ye shall not leaven any sacrifice (pasan thusian) which ye shall bring to the Lord (Lev 2:11 LXE)

"Eating the Passover (sacrificial lamb)" is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX) for celebrating Passover, but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover.  Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics.  Which is a problem, because artos is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare artos is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.
As Pravoslavbob pointed out, St. Paul is speaking in metaphors, actually turning them on their head.  To not see that, does violence to the text.
Per Paul, He is both.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?
because He has the leaven of divinity which He shares with us as the Bread that has come down from Heaven.  And comes down: hence the iconostais where the Royal Doors (the middle doors, which open up to the altar) are flanked by the icon of Christ and the Theotokos-how He came down-on the one side and on the other-the Pantocrator "Christ Almighty"-how He will come down on the other.  In the middle is the altar, on which He comes down in the Eucharist, now: an image that dates from the days of Justin Martyr (from 2nd century Palestine). Christ Himself identifies His Kingdom with leaven.   He nowhere uses the rabbinic metaphor of leaven=sin. Nor, for that matter, does the rest of the NT.  And the Church, the New Lump leavened by Christ has always had as her praxis the use of the new leaven in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the true Passover sacrifice sacrificed for us.  No, St. Paul does NOT identify Christ and the Eucharist with unleavened bread.  Otherwise he would have used azyma instead of artos in Chapter 10, and we would be speaking of the "breaking of the mazzo" instead of the "breaking of the bread."  St. Paul, his friend St. Ignatius, their follower St. John and the rest of us have held to the symbolism that Christ Himself teaches on leaven in the Gospels.  As for Judaising symbolism

This prohibition did not change with the New Testament:

NKJ  Romans 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image(eikonos) made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Rom 1:23 NKJ)

From the thread in question:
Rom 1:19 That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Rom. 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the icon of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
16:25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.

It is sophistry to claim Christ's incarnate body was not corruptible therefore this doesn't apply, Deut 4:16 forbade "any kind of icon" in the likeness of male human flesh, corruptible or not.

The reading for Tranfiguration: 2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
And from the thread in question:
2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
3:1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:22Professing himself to be wise, he became a fool, 28And even as he did not like to retain God in his knowledge, God gave him over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;(paraphrased).

It is the sophistry of the veil of Moses that insists that Deutroomy bans the Holy Icons.

All who image Jesus to worship Him thereby deny Jesus is God, for Deut 4:16 expressly rules out every possible image of God for worship.
Yes, the Deuteronomy mantra of Perssonism. We're still not worshipping your sacred cow.

All who image Jesus to worship Him claiming His Incarnate flesh has made His similitude sensible thereby deny Jesus came in human flesh as all icons in the likeness of human flesh are forbidden in Deut 4:16.
The iconoclast mantra of Perssonism, often repeated, never substantiated.
The Word took flesh and dwellt among us, and we behold His glory, the glory of the icon of the invisible God, Who took the likeness of man, in Which it was the good pleasure of the Father for the fullness of the Godhead to dwell therein, so that seeing Him we see God. John 1: 14, 14:9; Colossians 1:15, 19.



Copy pasting ad hominem and tangential material beneath my statements is NOT posting my precise argument about icons, and its precise refutation.

Frankly, your replies never address my points, they evade my points by changing the subject.


If I say "2+2=4" and you reply "Two apples in a barrel" you did not refute my arithmetic.



« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 10:49:49 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)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #557 on: August 10, 2010, 10:50:48 AM »

If you are getting no satisfaction from our arguments and feel that you never will, why are you still here?  Why haven't you shaken the dust off of your proverbial feet and gone elsewhere?  Please don't lie to me and tell me it is because you love us and want to see us saved.

God forgive me, but you're here to hear the bleating of your own tongue, so to speak.  I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your MO is to invade messageboards, make a nuisance of yourself, get banned, and then heap praises upon yourself about your perfect knowledge of the Lord's mind because you are one His elect.

The only thing that will get you banned here is flagrant violations of forum policy, a policy that you (supposedly) read and agreed to upon registration. 

Repeatedly braying like a stubborn mule will not.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
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 #558 on: August 10, 2010, 10:50:50 AM »

(sigh)  Oh, Alfred - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your sincerity, but ... you really ARE here to proselytize, not discuss, this issue.  I'm disappointed in you. Sad
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 #559 on: August 10, 2010, 10:54:32 AM »

You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.




We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.



Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
Like you have evaded reading St. John of Damscus, and yet claim to refute him.

What, you don't know how to click a link?  too hard?

Of course, most those who read these posts of pollution are not so handicapped, so they will go there and clear there mind of the veil of Moses.

You are acting towards Father like a student who asks the liberarian for help when he really wants the librarian to do the research and write the term paper for him.

Evasion. Copy paste my precise argument, and its precise refutation...

As everyone else can see, I've do so repeatedly.

If that is found everywhere in this thread and elsewhere, it should be easy for you to do.

Won't anyone address my argument?
St. John already has.  You invoked his name to smear him.  Numbers 12:8
Here.  I practically have to put the nipple in your mouth:
Three treatises on the divine images By John (of Damascus, Saint.), Andrew Louth
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_U1mtafEPMC&pg=PA90&dq=John+of+Damascus+on+the+divine+images+4:15&hl=en&ei=65hXTM3QBIyJnQfpnM3YCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks anyway...
I didn't post for links.
So you posted without knowing what you are talking about.
You brought up St. John.  You haven't addressed him.  If you wanted us to address your novel interpretations, you should have made a thread on that.
I'm not going to do your sucking for you as well.
I'm not sure I'm up for so tedious a task right now, there being so many.  Lord willing, maybe later. Btw, the string of posts started here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=460320;topic=29148.135;sesc=fffcbc099c68a161ff4e3689dcc06cda
resulted form me cutting the meat of one post into bite sizes.  Evidently you can't rush someone, who isn't ready for solids, off of the milk.

Do it now and prove I've been refuted, or admit not one of you has addressed my arguments.

I don't mind...I trust God's elect will be made aware of the truth.
which is why anyone who is not perishing can see that we have addressed every one of Perssonism's "arguments," and proved them wanting.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 10:56:03 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 #560 on: August 10, 2010, 10:57:58 AM »

(sigh)  Oh, Alfred - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your sincerity, but ... you really ARE here to proselytize, not discuss, this issue.  I'm disappointed in you. Sad

I'm not sure he is here for proselytizing...seems more like exhibitionism and narcissistic attention seeking behavior.
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 #561 on: August 10, 2010, 10:58:59 AM »

(sigh)  Oh, Alfred - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your sincerity, but ... you really ARE here to proselytize, not discuss, this issue.  I'm disappointed in you. Sad

While I am here to proselytize for Christ (who wouldn't, He is Wonderful!), I treat responses to my arguments thoroughly.

THAT is why I say "copy paste my precise argument, and its precise refutation."

If I didn't treat the refutation before, I will certainly do so now.

But until you folks do that, claiming I don't respond to your arguments about other things is irrelevant. I posted my argument to discuss icons  not sola scriptura...etc etc.


Now in a thread on sola scriptura, there I would discuss that, and not icons.

That's the way it should work.

Telling me to click a link is the same as telling me "its in the library"...its evasion, nothing less.

My arguments remain undiminished by all the irrelevant responses in the 13 pages of this thread....the evasion of them is evident to all without an agenda.

My proselytizing is aided by your continued refusal to post precise refutation under a specific argument of mine about icons.  
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 #562 on: August 10, 2010, 10:59:45 AM »

If you are getting no satisfaction from our arguments and feel that you never will, why are you still here?  Why haven't you shaken the dust off of your proverbial feet and gone elsewhere?  Please don't lie to me and tell me it is because you love us and want to see us saved.

God forgive me, but you're here to hear the bleating of your own tongue, so to speak.  I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your MO is to invade messageboards, make a nuisance of yourself, get banned, and then heap praises upon yourself about your perfect knowledge of the Lord's mind because you are one His elect.
The only thing that will get you banned here is flagrant violations of forum policy, a policy that you (supposedly) read and agreed to upon registration. 

Repeatedly braying like a stubborn mule will not.


Don't forget writing the hagiography of his own martyrdom.
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
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #563 on: August 10, 2010, 11:00:06 AM »

(sigh)  Oh, Alfred - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your sincerity, but ... you really ARE here to proselytize, not discuss, this issue.  I'm disappointed in you. Sad

I'm not sure he is here for proselytizing...seems more like exhibitionism and narcissistic attention seeking behavior.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
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 #564 on: August 10, 2010, 11:08:09 AM »

Copy pasting ad hominem
Attacking someone's heretical ideas isn't ad hominem. I do believe PetertheAleut posted the definition for you: did you miss that too?

Quote
and tangential material beneath my statements is NOT posting my precise argument about icons, and its precise refutation.

LOL.  You start a thread on St. John, but do not post his precise argument about icons, but launch into vague refutation.

And the material is on point. Which is why it strikes a nerve, causing such pain causing paralysis and silence.

Quote
Frankly, your replies never address my points, they evade my points by changing the subject.

Yes, the martyrdom mantra of Perssonism, often chanted, always baseless.

Quote
If I say "2+2=4" and you reply "Two apples in a barrel" you did not refute my arithmetic.

Your Muslm friends often make much of arthmetic, telling me 1+1+1 does equal 3. They never advance to higher math 1x1x1=1.

So chopping the meat of my refutations into bite sizes is no good for someone who can't even handle milk on his own.  Not all are readers are so handicapped.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 11:18:50 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
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 #565 on: August 10, 2010, 11:10:49 AM »

That's simply not true, Alfred.  You demand everyone here read YOUR detailed posts, but then refuse to read the lengthy, thoughtful, detailed replies.  Obviously you don't agree with us about using icons to pray - and that's fine:  you're entitled to your opinion.  But you don't even acknowledge that we ARE fellow worshippers of Jesus Christ - you insist that you and you alone are the only one here who "really" worships Him properly.  You see us kissing an icon and immediately assume the worst - that we're WORSHIPPING   IDOLS OH   NOES! - instead of assuming we're worshipping Christ in the best way we know how.  THAT is why your proselytism is failing so miserably.
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 #566 on: August 10, 2010, 11:16:06 AM »

That's simply not true, Alfred.  You demand everyone here read YOUR detailed posts, but then refuse to read the lengthy, thoughtful, detailed replies.  Obviously you don't agree with us about using icons to pray - and that's fine:  you're entitled to your opinion.  But you don't even acknowledge that we ARE fellow worshippers of Jesus Christ - you insist that you and you alone are the only one here who "really" worships Him properly.  You see us kissing an icon and immediately assume the worst - that we're WORSHIPPING   IDOLS OH   NOES! - instead of assuming we're worshipping Christ in the best way we know how.  THAT is why your proselytism is failing so miserably.

In most every day talk, people never really listen and respond to each other. While one discusses their car, the other replies with a statement about work, and then they go their separate ways...

Some carry this "not listening mode" over to apologetic....under an argument they will reply talking about other things, just like they do in every day life.

BUT you don't refute an argument by talking about other things.

I want to discuss REASONS for belief, not read your statements of what you believe.

That none of you will copy paste my argument, and its precise refutation beneath it, is proof none of you can, because it doesn't exist.


The truth is irrefutable, hence my arguments are not refuted..



« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 11:18:44 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)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,440



WWW
« Reply #567 on: August 10, 2010, 11:24:32 AM »

I was warned about shortening John of Damascus, any nickname of him is prohibited.

Perssonism is a disparaging nickname referring to my statements, while the shortened form of John of Damascus wasn't at all, yet I was warned.


You were warned about shortening the name of St John of Damascus, not calling his teachings "Johanism" or "Damascene".  The thread in question uses your full name, with respect and no shortenings.  It doesn't say "Al P's teachings on icons" or something similar.  It says "Perssonism", that is, the teaching of Alfred Persson, the same way we refer to the teachings of Martin Luther as "Lutheran" or John Calvin's teachings as "Calvinist" (okay, so Ialmisry did misspell your name the first time around, but after realizing this he got it corrected, out of respect).

You should be honored, your innovative thoughts on icons have elevated you to the status of your own sect.  Just don't expect a line out the door to sign on.
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!
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 #568 on: August 10, 2010, 11:27:55 AM »

(sigh) (wiping dust off sandals, moving on)  Oh well - I tried!  Bye, Alfred, and God bless you.
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 #569 on: August 10, 2010, 11:35:05 AM »

(sigh)  Oh, Alfred - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your sincerity, but ... you really ARE here to proselytize, not discuss, this issue.  I'm disappointed in you. Sad

While I am here to proselytize for Christ (who wouldn't, He is Wonderful!), I treat responses to my arguments thoroughly.

THAT is why I say "copy paste my precise argument, and its precise refutation."

If I didn't treat the refutation before, I will certainly do so now.

But until you folks do that, claiming I don't respond to your arguments about other things is irrelevant. I posted my argument to discuss icons  not sola scriptura...etc etc.


Now in a thread on sola scriptura, there I would discuss that, and not icons.

That's the way it should work.
Yes, it should.
On that:
I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

The Church I know, so Christ I know and Paul I know, but who are you? You shouldn't wave the veil of Moses while invoking the name of Christ like a matador.  You can get hurt.

I'll be addressing Mr. Persson's repeat of someone else's mistake, sola scriptura, there.


Quote
Telling me to click a link is the same as telling me "its in the library"...its evasion, nothing less.

Yes, talkling about Alfred Persson's eisogesis on a thread purpotedly about St. John of Damascus' exogesis of De 4:15 is quite evasive, besides being bait and switch.

Quote
My arguments remain undiminished

LOL. You can't diminish naught.

Quote
by all the irrelevant responses in the 13 pages of this thread....the evasion of them is evident to all without an agenda.

Like those not wearing the veil of Moses?

Quote
My proselytizing is aided by your continued refusal to post precise refutation under a specific argument of mine about icons.  

The Word took flesh and dwellt among us, and we behold His glory, the glory of the icon of the invisible God and His express image of His person, Who took the likeness of man, in Which it was the good pleasure of the Father for the fullness of the Godhead to dwell therein, so that seeing Him we see God, and obey the order of God to the angels to bow down in worship before Him, seeing the likeness of Him Whose likeness could not be seen on Sinai, for we are sons of the free Church, and not of the slave. John 1: 14, 14:9; Colossians 1:15, 19, Heb. 1:3,6 Gal. 4:24-5, 31

« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 11:42:45 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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #570 on: August 10, 2010, 12:33:00 PM »

Why would Alfred listen to anyone else? He does not want to be proved wrong. He will accept no such proof, for in his mind he cannot be wrong. Even if something were to cause him to recant, like Cramner, he will burn in obstinacy.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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 #571 on: August 10, 2010, 12:39:19 PM »

You want proof that icons were venerated since the earliest time of Christianity? Look no further than the veneration of the Mandylion, also known as The Image Not Made By Hands, also known as Acheiropoeitos.

Christ Himself made this image, by pressing a cloth to His face. Miraculously, an image of His face was imprinted on the cloth. This cloth was sent to King Abgar of the Osroenes, who was stricken by a terrible disease, and who had sent word to the Apostles imploring them to send Jesus to him. The Lord was, for whatever reason, unable to travel to the king, so He sent the cloth. By praying before this miraculous image, an image of the Lord Himself, the king was healed.

Christ Himself made an icon of Himself. Alfred, deal with it.

That's not an sub apostolic early church father or a Bible writer.

It has all the appearance of myth.

It was in the archive of Edessa when Eusebius the historian of the Church found it, 290 or before.

Quote
Icon veneration is central to Orthodox worship, you can hardly be silent about them for long, like breathing, its something the Orthodox must do to live.
Imagine that. Mr. Persson has posted the Gospel Truth.

Quote
Therefore the absence of icon veneration in the NT

Icon appears, as we have seen, several times in the NT.

Quote
and sub apostolic church fathers
who refer to icons, relics, veneration of the saints, etc. often, as the Apostles did in the NT before them.

Quote
is weighty evidence icon veneration didn't exist in the apostolic church.
once again your evidence is weighed in the scales and found wanting.  Your predecessors among the Protestants used to speak about the blank walls of Church and the iconoclasm of Judaism.  But then the archeologists dug up the catacombs and Churches covered with images predating the Holy Emperor Constantine, and the synogogues from the same era with their images, and your coreligionists fell silent.

Btw, it wasn't until after the Iconoclasts that icons became so up front among the Orthodox.  We have plenty of examples from Constnatine till Leo III, but the Christians took them as a given and for granted, much like the air (and Spirit) we breath.
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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #572 on: August 10, 2010, 02:10:19 PM »

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.

I've shown you otherwise, and yet you continue to stomp your feet and shout.  Too bad.

Fact is, nothing I've said has been refuted...its all been buried under icons, ad hominem, and tangential material.

I'm 25 minutes into compiling all the refutations - by the time I'm finished, I'll give you enough to get a PhD in the Theology of iconography. ( Wink )

That is why you won't copy paste my argument with its precise refutation...none were given.

The reason why I wouldn't do it before is because it is a tedious process - I'm 25 minutes in, and I've only copied 4 refutations for your 1st point of your first post; there are still probably a half a dozen more.

You are at a loss how to respond...admit it.

How childish of you.  Pray that I run out of free time in my day before I finish the compilation.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
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 #573 on: August 10, 2010, 02:29:42 PM »

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.

I've shown you otherwise, and yet you continue to stomp your feet and shout.  Too bad.

Fact is, nothing I've said has been refuted...its all been buried under icons, ad hominem, and tangential material.

I'm 25 minutes into compiling all the refutations - by the time I'm finished, I'll give you enough to get a PhD in the Theology of iconography. ( Wink )

That is why you won't copy paste my argument with its precise refutation...none were given.

The reason why I wouldn't do it before is because it is a tedious process - I'm 25 minutes in, and I've only copied 4 refutations for your 1st point of your first post; there are still probably a half a dozen more.

You are at a loss how to respond...admit it.

How childish of you.  Pray that I run out of free time in my day before I finish the compilation.

Don't rush it, please be careful its not more of the same ad hominem, links, iconography, and evasion of the argument by changing the subject, or endless repeats of belief. It its that, why bother?

It will be wonderful if my argument is actually treated.

I look forward to that.

Take your time...I'm researching for a different thread on the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"...No doubt all here foolishly believe that means the church is the ground from whence the truth spring....ha ha, sure it is....that's the ticket.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 02:35:02 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)
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #574 on: August 10, 2010, 02:56:52 PM »

Post A: Prove me wrong

Post B: Very in depth facts that prove post A wrong

Post A: See no one can prove me wrong. What joy.....

13 pages and counting of refutations to your silliness.  May I ask are you a "church" of one? Or are you a member of a congregation?
Logged
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 #575 on: August 10, 2010, 04:16:13 PM »

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.

I've shown you otherwise, and yet you continue to stomp your feet and shout.  Too bad.

Fact is, nothing I've said has been refuted...its all been buried under icons, ad hominem, and tangential material.

I'm 25 minutes into compiling all the refutations - by the time I'm finished, I'll give you enough to get a PhD in the Theology of iconography. ( Wink )

That is why you won't copy paste my argument with its precise refutation...none were given.

The reason why I wouldn't do it before is because it is a tedious process - I'm 25 minutes in, and I've only copied 4 refutations for your 1st point of your first post; there are still probably a half a dozen more.

You are at a loss how to respond...admit it.

How childish of you.  Pray that I run out of free time in my day before I finish the compilation.

Don't rush it, please be careful its not more of the same ad hominem, links, iconography, and evasion of the argument by changing the subject, or endless repeats of belief. It its that, why bother?

Indeed.

So why your endless repetitions of your beliefs, evansion of the argument by ignoring/changing the subject, lack of substantiation, ad hominem attacks....?

Quote
It will be wonderful if my argument is actually treated.

It would be wonderful if you could take cognissance that it has.

Quote
I look forward to that.

Take your time...I'm researching for a different thread on the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"...No doubt all here foolishly believe that means the church is the ground from whence the truth spring....ha ha, sure it is....that's the ticket.

No, its the good soil which receives the Truth and bears fruit.  That Bible you got from us is one of those fruits: don't abuse it.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 04:17:01 PM 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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,662


WWW
« Reply #576 on: August 10, 2010, 04:29:25 PM »



If you saw Mel Gibson's The Last Temptation of Christ, one can argue that the entire movie is an icon of the human suffering of Jesus Christ.


Off topic and a quick aside, Mel Gibson's movie was The Passion.  The flick you mentioned is by Martin Scorcese, and a completely different idea entirely.

Oops, *** Embarrassed Smiley *** at least you knew what I intended.  This thread does seem like something from a Nikos Kazantakis novel (he did author the book, The Last Temptation of Christ) or more like Camus or Sartre....   Cool
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #577 on: August 10, 2010, 04:42:13 PM »

Iconophiles differ from the apostolic faith, the latter despised images of God. It wasn't till centuries later the Orthodox faith was overtaken by iconography, prior to that, they were all like me.
What historical evidence do you have of this?

You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.
If, as someone else mentioned, the use of icons is taken for granted and is not itself under attack, why would anyone consider it important to talk about them?  They had more pressing matters to address, such as how to defend the faith against Gnosticism and paganism.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.
The burden of proof is not based on the substance of the argument but on the person making it.  Since I'm not trying to prove anything here--the only task I HAVE taken on is pointing out the logical fallacies in your arguments--I bear no burden of proof to provide sufficient warrant for a position.  YOU are the one pressing your case here, so the burden of proof is on YOU to support it.  Seeing how many people have successfully taken on the challenge of actually proving you wrong, though the rules of debate placed on them no responsibility to do so, I'd say you're not doing a very good job of carrying your burden of proof.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.[/i]
I'm not saying the Church did practice icon veneration.  Though I believe she very likely did, I'm not asserting this as an argument in this debate.  Therefore, I have no reason to prove an argument I'm not making.

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.
Are you aware of the logical concept related to burden of proof: the fallacy of the argument from ignorance?  This fallacy is fundamentally an attempt to shift the burden of proof by demanding the other person prove you wrong.  This argument takes on one of these two general forms:
1.  P cannot be proven false, therefore it must be true.
2.  P cannot be proven true, therefore it must be false.

I see you committing this fallacy quite often on this thread.  You do this by asserting a negative proposition that you know you cannot prove then insist that you must be right until we provide evidence that proves otherwise.  This is fundamentally a game played by those too intellectually lazy to defend their own theses with solid arguments.  It's an asinine little game I intend not to play.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 04:53:30 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #578 on: August 10, 2010, 05:02:29 PM »

13 pages and counting of refutations to your silliness.
Exactly.  I hate to say I told you so (actually, to be honest I like saying I told you so; I admit it), but 12 pages ago I stated...
Folks, of what use is continuing this thread?
The thread is proving my point.
In spades.
G'night.
Logged
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 #579 on: August 10, 2010, 05:38:00 PM »

I only read "There are different kinds of image" and had to stop. It begs the question that all kinds of icon of God are forbidden:
Blame the Apostles, whom St. John quotes:
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God.
Heb. 1 Who being the radiance of his glory and the express image of His person.


TITLE MANTRA
You keep going back to this argument, ignoring outright all the points made about how it is not applicable in this discussion.  Oh, well - you're making a poor apologetic because of it.  If you're going to disagree with the premise of that thread, you may as well do so in that thread.

It was in this thread you asked me to check it out, so I answered you in this thread.

I told you I didn't read past those opening words, because it begged the question.

It didn't beg any question, as it dealt with the types of images, not the prohibition or enjoinment of them.  You'd know that if you read it.  Since you haven't read St. John is why I opened the thread.

Quote
THIS thread is discussing Deut 4: throughout,

Your part hasn't addressed the New Testament at all. We read the OT only in the light of Christ:

2Cor. 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.  4:3But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the icon of God, should shine on them. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.  

You can go discuss to your veiled hearts content, happily envelopped in Moses' veil, on any number of Jewish fora.

And you brought St. John of Damascus by name into the discussion, and then did not discuss his exegesis.  Given the title you gave this thread, one should expect it discucssing St. John throughout.


Quote
and my RICH apologetic

LOL. Now THAT's rich.

Quote
is standing tall,


Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.

undiminished by the evasions and iconography posted.

IDLE THREAT
Father has already spared us the need to respond to that part of your post.

But getting back to your opening post on this thread:

You do not give St. John of Damascus' exegeis of De. 4:15, you just assert it is impossible.  

Instead you give your exegesis, and then beg that we not question it.

Then you introduce your prooftexting mantra, keen it seems on showing that the LXX uses "(EIKWN)" in the prohibition of Deut. 4:15, althought you ignore the instances of it used by the Apostles, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and call that "changing the subject."

You then bring up the Nestorianism in a self contradictory statement against icons. The statement demonstrates ignorance that the Nestorians do not have icons, and are, in accordance with their Christology, iconoclast like you.

You then state a proposition, in ignorance it seems that St. John has refuted it, which denies the result of the Incarnation, and then proceed to beg a question trying to pass itself off as a conclusion.

You then further beg the question in your assertion abou any "EIKWNA" of Jesus, although you refuse to recognize, as quoted to you repeatedly, that the Apostles apppy the term "EIKWNA" to Jesus: for reasons you do not demonstrate, you restrict the term only to idols.

You then make an allusion to St. John to swipe him with another assertion based on the question you just begged.  You then make a blanket statement about verneration in the OT which can easily (as, unknown to you, St. John has done) be shown false by reading the OT, and  in support beg a question you are trying to pass off as a conclusion.  

You then, in some pretense of keeping up the appearance of being thorough it seems, go off on two tangents about groves and pillars, making broad sweeping statements that can (and have here) be disproved easily by just reading the OT.

You can't diminish nought, so you're right, your arguments are undiminished.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 05:43:14 PM 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 #580 on: August 10, 2010, 05:52:40 PM »

God does not change, Jesus is God, therefore He does not want an image of His similitude either.

Since you have expressed your admiration for the Muslims, and your arguement depends so much on this mantra, what do you say to your Muslims friends that agree with you, and then point out that since God does not change, He neither begots nor is begotten (Quran 112:3), and hence the Faith of the Apostles in the Incarnation of Christ is idolatrous blasphemy, therefore Jesus is not God?
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 #581 on: August 11, 2010, 12:30:56 AM »

God does not change, Jesus is God, therefore He does not want an image of His similitude either.

Since you have expressed your admiration for the Muslims, and your arguement depends so much on this mantra, what do you say to your Muslims friends that agree with you, and then point out that since God does not change, He neither begots nor is begotten (Quran 112:3), and hence the Faith of the Apostles in the Incarnation of Christ is idolatrous blasphemy, therefore Jesus is not God?

No, I did not and they are not my friends. Just as God used the Babylonians, Assyrians etc to chastise His people, so I believe He used Islam.

Idolatry causes God to leave, which take His protection away, satan fills the void, with evil which includes war:

NKJ  Ezekiel 8:6 Furthermore He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel commits here, to make Me go far away from My sanctuary? Now turn again, you will see greater abominations." (Eze 8:6 NKJ)

 11 "And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
 12 "How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!
 13 "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

 (Dan 12:11-1 NAS)
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)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #582 on: August 11, 2010, 12:45:35 AM »

Alfred, have you read St John of Damascus' treatise on the defense of icons yet?
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 #583 on: August 11, 2010, 12:50:34 AM »

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.[/i]
I'm not saying the Church did practice icon veneration.  Though I believe she very likely did, I'm not asserting this as an argument in this debate.  Thave no reason to prove an argument I'm not making.

Are you aware of the logical concept related to burden of proof: the fallacy of the argument from ignorance?  This fallacy is fundamentally an attempt to shift the burden of proof by demanding the other person prove you wrong.  This argument takes on one of these two general forms:
1.  P cannot be proven false, therefore it must be true.
2.  P cannot be proven true, therefore it must be false.

I see you committing this fallacy quite often on this thread.  You do this by asserting a negative proposition that you know you cannot prove then insist that you must be right until we provide evidence that proves otherwise.  This is fundamentally a game played by those too intellectually lazy to defend their own theses with solid arguments.  It's an asinine little game I intend not to play.

There is no evidence the early church practiced icon veneration, the absence of any mention of it is inexplicable if they practiced icon veneration like the Orthodox, for the latter can hardly restrain themselves from writing about it----therefore the lack of writing about it indicates they did not practice icon veneration.

"Indicates", not "is." Do a search on argument from silence and you will find my statement SILENCE proves nothing,  one can only propose a likely explanation for the silence.

The total lack of icon veneration in the Bible and sub apostolic fathers, and the Jews from whence Christianity sprang, is weighty INDICATION icon veneration didn't exist, for as the Orthodox today show, those who practice icon veneration can hardly be quiet about it. So when a group is quiet about it, the most plausible explanation for that silence is they didn't practice it.[/i]


If icon veneration were practiced silently by the Orthodox, IF they never mentioned it, or wrote about it, and never did it publicly before eyewitnesses, THEN AND ONLY THEN would the silence about it in Scripture and sub apostolic fathers indicate nothing, because then both "yes" and "no" would be equally plausible explanations for the silence:

The Bible and sub apostolic fathers are silent about icon veneration because:
1)Icon veneration wasn't practiced ("NO").
2)Icon veneration practiced silently like "control group XYZ", they never mention it, write about it or do it publicly so others might report it. ("YES")


BUT the Orthodox can hardly be silent about their images, therefore the silence about it in the Bible does indicate they didn't practice it.

So it is universally believed they are silent about icon veneration because they didn't practice it. Therefore, to prove that incorrect, the burden of proof is on you to show where we missed seeing it in the historical record, the Bible or sub apostolic fathers.

Lacking that, the weight of the evidence is they did not practice it.

Then icon veneration is NOT apostolic, and therefore YOU should be concerned given your desire to follow apostolic truth.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 01:13:52 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)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #584 on: August 11, 2010, 12:53:20 AM »

Alfred, have you read St John of Damascus' treatise on the defense of icons yet?
Logged
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 0.237 seconds with 72 queries.