OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 06:50:56 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 38475 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #810 on: October 31, 2010, 06:52:13 PM »

If we were in a Casino, the Dealer would have called Security long ago, to boot you out. You lost, your bluff was called.
The problem, Alfred, is that you're in OUR "casino".

It was a metaphor, nothing more. I did call his bluff, he should have folded that argument...trying to play that hand, is a loser.
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: 37,866



« Reply #811 on: October 31, 2010, 06:56:08 PM »

If we were in a Casino, the Dealer would have called Security long ago, to boot you out. You lost, your bluff was called.
The problem, Alfred, is that you're in OUR "casino".

It was a metaphor, nothing more. I did call his bluff, he should have folded that argument...trying to play that hand, is a loser.
Dealer had told you to show your hand:what do you know of St. Athanasius, or anything for that matter?
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
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #812 on: October 31, 2010, 07:07:01 PM »

There are no First Second Third apologetic for icons because the Christian  church didn't use them.

LOL!



Here is the oldest Christian Church found to date, in Dura Europos. Note the iconography.



If they did, the Jews would have cited it as proof of idolatry and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew would have had a few chapters on it.

Unless the Jews also used iconography, in which case they would be in agreement and hence would have nothing to talk about.



Oops! Call the image police!

Besides, this is an assumption on your part. No one has any ability to say that if X was the case, it would necessarily have been mentioned in the Bible or the Fathers, or that such mentions would have survived. Not that it matters; our faith is a living Tradition, not a dead thing we reconstructed in modern times. Remember, Orthodoxy is not a forensic religion. We don't base our beliefs on things dug out of the dirt.

But it's true that things dug out of the dirt back the position we have always held. Wink
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 07:08:44 PM by bogdan » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #813 on: October 31, 2010, 07:26:34 PM »


The Presbyterian Sunday School I went to was at my Dad's church and it was very nice.  The teachers were kind, loving people, and I have very fond memories of them.  We were very thoroughly taught the Bible and, when we were old enough, were given doses of Calvin's Commentaries and The Institutes.  So I have some concept of their beliefs. 

With regard to checking scripture before "jumping ship," I did that.  In the Sunday School classes we were always taught to not believe in anything unless it was in the Bible.  One day it occurred to me that the Reformation was not in the Bible.  There was no mention of John Calvin, John Knox, or even Martin Luther.  It just wasn't there.  So that, coupled with a desire for a deeper spirituality and a more scripture based form of worship, I began going to the Church that I knew from my mother's side of the family, which was the Armenian Orthodox Church.

I knew it you weren't a real Presbyterian. None of them think like that, you  are making it up for my benefit. The latter part of your statement is probably true, you desired the ritual you saw in Armenian Church. Nothing wrong with that, but pretending you were a real Bible thumping Presbyterian is a misrepresentation. You went to a Presbyterian church a few times, just as I've been in a few garages, and you didn't become a Presbyterian, and I didn't become a car...THAT is the truth.


You're misrepresenting what I said, but then I wouldn't expect anything different.   Smiley  That's another thing that made me question Protestantism.  I was told all kinds of awful things about Catholics by my teachers, and when I check with my Catholic friends about it, they would say that what they believed was not at all like what I was taught.  I began to question why a church would need to spread misinformation about another church, which was what so many Protestants seemed to be doing regarding Catholics.

Anyway, nothing I said above would justify your saying that I attended Sunday School only a few times.  I went most Sundays during my entire childhood, and into my teen years. I was thoroughly immersed in it.  

I could see, however, how you would need to believe that I barely knew what the Presbyterian Church was before I left it.  I would imagine it is hard for you to come across so many of us here who used to be Protestant but then left it.  It probably baffles you.  You may want to try to listen to us, and then you will see where we come from and what made us leave.
Logged

genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,498



« Reply #814 on: October 31, 2010, 07:30:45 PM »


Among all the responders here, you impress me the most with your sincerity.

I agree some songs are a waste of time, there's only a few I like, and all taken verbatim from scripture.

But you have been cagey...saying Orthodoxy must be understood in the context of mysticism...not logic...which of course leaves me unable to respond...I can only refute a precise claim...if none is made, I am disarmed.

Perhaps you are clever enough to know that...

I am not suggesting you are purposely saying this...I am convinced you are sincere, both in your beliefs and statements, and I commend that.

I can agree to disagree with you, agreeably.

I do not say there aren't Christians who are Orthodox. Christians are everywhere, in every part of the body of Christ, all that confess Nicene Trinitarianism (1 Cor 3:10-15; 12:5ff).

When I was in the Middle East, I didn't quibble if someone were Catholic, or Copt, we were all in the same fox hole, figuratively speaking (I've never been in the military.) Bos'n in the Merchant Marine, but that isn't military.

Thank you for those kind remarks, Alfred. I will do all that I can to maintain that respect - in spite of our disagreements.

I really do understand why you are having trouble seeing the Christian faith from a different perspective.

As I explained in an earlier message, I was struck by the visual impact of an Orthodox Church because of a real need brought to my attention by a health issue - certainly something that God allowed, I believe, in order to prepare me for Orthodoxy. So the mere presence of icons was not an issue for me. To have family portraits on the walls seems perfectly in order. Of course, most Sunday School classrooms are covered with pictures. They are a great teaching tool, and were certainly valuable for teaching the faithful in the days when illiteracy was the norm. However, their veneration was something that I wasn't so sure about.

The Christian faith is certainly an historical one - it's based on historical fact, we have records of faithful Christians throughout the centuries. Even during my Protestant years, I knew that I had some connection to Christians in other times, in much the same way that I had connections to Christians in other places. So, it wasn't hard for me to realize that we worship with the saints of all ages. And certainly, in the Orthodox Church where almost every Sunday and feast day we use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom which is about 1600 years old - my worship is identical to that of Christians that long ago! So putting all of that together, I found myself wanting to acknowledge the presence of the historical saints who were at worship with me, and to show them respect, just as would to any contemporary worshipper. Once I reached that stage, veneration was the natural thing to do.

What opened things up for me with the Scriptures was learning about the use of the word "save" or "salvation" and all their forms. I was challenged to look up those words to see how they are used. It surprised me how rarely those words are synonymous with "conversion". The same is true with other words (at the risk of pointing one out, it's the word "remember", which has been an issue in another discussion). I began to realize that many of these words and concepts give a lot of room for the mind and spirit to explore the vastness of God and what He has for us. Precise definitions and pretty boxes of doctrine really hold little interest any more - not that I reject using words correctly and holding to correct beliefs- please don't have me saying that!

So you see, in many areas I have found a freedom that I didn't have before. I didn't expect it and every day I'm just as amazed.

There definitely is uncharted territory here for me. And I understand that you find it just as strange as did the Europeans who heard tales of new worlds, and heard about such creatures as bison that blanketed the prairies and the platypus that God put together with the leftover pieces  Grin. Some things just don't make any sense until you see and experience them for yourself.
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #815 on: October 31, 2010, 07:39:30 PM »

So I'm actually gonna come down on Alfred's side on a certain point: the quotations ialmisry gave is St. John quoting something, but my copy of On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2003) states the following on p. 119:

St. Athanasius, from the hundred chapters written to Antiochus the ruler in the form of question and answer, chapter 38: [here follows the quotation, but the footnote to that introduction states thusly:]

"The 'Questions and Answers' (Erotapokriseis), wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius the Great (PG 28.621BC= Doctr. Patr. 327.16-328.3; the quotation in Doct. Patr. is longer than that cited by John, but textually much closer than that preserved in Migne."

Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #816 on: October 31, 2010, 07:48:10 PM »

Thank you for posting, Salpy. It looks to be very edifying.  angel

The defense of icons by Vertanes really is edifying.  For those who don't want to click on the link I gave above, I had some time ago pasted Vertanes' work here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21473.msg324380.html#msg324380

I have never read John of Damascus, but I've been told that some of his arguments are similar or the same as those of Vertanes.  It could be that John of Damascus had read the work of Vertanes, but I doubt it.  Vertanes was Non-Chalcedonian (he was the author of a scathing anathema against Chalcedon and Pope Leo) and John of Damascus was very much opposed to the Non-Chalcedonians.  I doubt he would have had any interest in Vertanes' work, as he would have had no interest in reading the work of those he considered heretics.  Also, I don't think enough time passed for works all the way from Armenia to have travelled far enough to reach John.  It had been decades, which for us is a long time, but back then it took longer than that for documents to really circulate.

So that makes it all the more interesting that the two men had the same thing to say on the subject.  I find that when a tradition is found in both the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches, that means it is very ancient.  So if both Vertanes and John were presenting the same arguments, that means not only the use of icons is ancient, but the reasoning and theology behind the use of icons is also ancient.
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: 37,866



« Reply #817 on: October 31, 2010, 08:00:09 PM »

So I'm actually gonna come down on Alfred's side on a certain point: the quotations ialmisry gave is St. John quoting something, but my copy of On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2003) states the following on p. 119:

St. Athanasius, from the hundred chapters written to Antiochus the ruler in the form of question and answer, chapter 38: [here follows the quotation, but the footnote to that introduction states thusly:]

"The 'Questions and Answers' (Erotapokriseis), wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius the Great (PG 28.621BC= Doctr. Patr. 327.16-328.3; the quotation in Doct. Patr. is longer than that cited by John, but textually much closer than that preserved in Migne."



I'm aware of that.  Since Aflred hasn't read St. John (as you point out, the translation notes the source of the quotaion), nor, as far as he has demonstrated thus far, anything attributed to or actually written by Pope St. Athanasius, he wasn't aware of that.  Now that you have done his homework for him, he will now go on with his assertions without facts.

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
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #818 on: October 31, 2010, 08:15:07 PM »

Don't tell my brethren that, they'll think I'm going soft.

I thought you were a one-man denomination.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #819 on: October 31, 2010, 08:16:40 PM »

I'm still waiting for him to quote something other than OT Law interpreted as literally as possible to back up his position.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #820 on: October 31, 2010, 08:21:16 PM »


1)Yes, its wrong. I wonder if the Prohibition forced it on some, they still had to celebrate communion during it. So you left a grape juice communion to bow before images. I fail to see the connection. Clearly you left a lot out. Connect the dots please...From grape juice...To icons...I just don't see it.



Well, there is an intervening 13 years from point (a) to point (b), yet at the same time, not all that much changed.  Suffice it to say that I went from being "neither particularly 'High' nor particularly 'Low'" that is to say neither strongly "Evangelical" nor strongly "Catholic" (in the traditional, not sectarian, sense) to accepting Orthodoxy in Her fullness.

Edit: BTW it wasn't the Prohibition that forced this viewpoint on the Baptist church, an anti-alcohol stance was present well throughout the 19th century.  It was this viewpoint that forced Prohibition.

Quote
2) 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luk 22:20 KJV)

Christ's words are figurative, there was no literal New Testament floating around in his blood, nor did it exist as Christ spoke. The New Covenant would not exist till AFTER Christ's blood was shed, therefore it is impossible He spoke literally.




In this passage Christ is not speaking of the "New Testament" as a section of the Bible, but of the New Testament that is the Incarnation of God into the world, the Word made flesh.  So, yes indeed, the New Testament is quite literally present.  

Keep in mind, the idea of the "sacrifice" being limited to just the Crucifixion is a primarily Western (that is to say Roman) understanding.  The entirety of the Incarnation, from Conception to Ascension, is the sacrifice, as St Paul tells us in Phillippians 2.



Quote

3)Many Protestants reject Pre Trib rapture theory, as do I. BUT YOU jump to a church that denies the consensus of the Fathers Christ will reign a 1,000 years! Papias, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Caius according to Eusebius, Origin, Commodianus, Nepos accorinding to Dionysius of Alexandria, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius to name a few believed in the Millennial reign of Christ.

So by what law of logic do you leap from the few Protestant Churches who believe in Pre Trib Rapture, to a church that denies the Millennial Kingdom of Christ, an explicit teaching of Scripture?

NKJ  Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
 (Rev 20:4 NKJ)...

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
 7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison
 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Clearly you have left something out, one doesn't leave a church because of a doctrinal error, for another church that teaches doctrinal error. You must connect the dots for me, From Error....To Error, how that is better or something God would want you to do?


I tend to leave the book of Revelation alone.  It is possibly the book of the Bible I've read the most (after St John's Gospels and Epistles) and the one I understand the least.  I am willing to remain agnostic where much of it's material is concerned, save only to note that in Apocalyptic literature time is never to be understood literally.  

Quote

4)The "Council in Constantinople" had hundreds of bishops who believed as I, clearly its not a new opinion.
"Leo III's policy suffered from having no theoretical foundation in theology. To eliminate this handicap, his successor Emperor Constantine V Copronymos sought to have images condemned by the Church and to impose iconoclasm as a duty of conscience as well as the obligation of a citizen. About 752 he elaborated an original theology of images, which he developed into treatises and which he -- like his father -- defended in public audiences. Two years later he had it ratified in a general council of the Byzantine episcopate (338 council fathers attending) held in the suburban palace of Hiereia from February 10 to August 8, its prime ecclesiastical movers being three prelates of Asia Minor, especially the Metropolitan Theodosius Apsimar of Ephesus (the patriarchal see being vacant)." (New Catholic Encyclopedia [1967], volume 7, p 327)

Throughout this thread I have given arguments why icons are a violation of Deut 4:12 ff, and not one of you have refuted the simple fact God forbade any kind of icon be made of God, and as Jesus is God, that includes Him, especially ICONS in the likeness of human flesh:

16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of EIKONA figure, the likeness of male or female,
 (Deu 4:15-16 LXE)

All who make icons of Jesus thereby deny 1)He is God; 2)He came in human flesh.

John of Damascus' argument we saw the incarnate Christ therefore we can make an icon of it, is directly contradicted by the fact Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah saw the similitude of God, and yet do not make images of it:

Moses didn't make an icon of God even though He saw His immanent nature:

LXE  Exodus 33:23 And I will remove my hand, and then shalt thou see my back parts; but my face shall not appear to thee. (Exo 33:23 LXE)


I know of very few people that would wish to have an Icon of God's backside, glorious backside though it must be.

Quote

KJV  Numbers 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (Num 12:8 KJV)

or Abraham:

 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground...

 13 And the LORD (YHWH)said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
 14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD(YHWH)? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
 (Gen 18:2, 13-14 KJV)

Or Isaiah:

 5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD(YHWH) of hosts. (Isa 6:5 KJV)

NKJ  John 12:41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him. (Joh 12:41 NKJ)


Clearly you have left something out in your story why you became Orthodox, it cannot be Scripture gave you the idea.


Like I said, it's an all or nothing prospect.  Either images are allowed or they aren't, the text gives us no middle ground.  Either we are to be like extremist Muslims of the 12th century who would not allow anything other than patterns and curlicues or we can behave like sane Orthodox Christians and respect the images we have recorded.

Quote

If one had only the New Testament to read, and then appeared in this world suddenly, if asked to describe what a New Testament Church looked like, he certainly would NOT describe an Orthodox service.


If one only had the New Testament to read and then appeared in this world suddenly, without the context of either the Old Testament or the past two thousand years of Christian development, who knows what that person's conception of a church would be.  It would certainly not resemble ANY modern denomination's regular mode of service.  I would suspect the only place such a person would be comfortable would be an Orthodox monastery.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 08:24:09 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

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

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

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


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #821 on: October 31, 2010, 09:55:30 PM »

There are no First Second Third apologetic for icons because the Christian  church didn't use them.

LOL!



Here is the oldest Christian Church found to date, in Dura Europos. Note the iconography.



If they did, the Jews would have cited it as proof of idolatry and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew would have had a few chapters on it.

Unless the Jews also used iconography, in which case they would be in agreement and hence would have nothing to talk about.



Oops! Call the image police!

Besides, this is an assumption on your part. No one has any ability to say that if X was the case, it would necessarily have been mentioned in the Bible or the Fathers, or that such mentions would have survived. Not that it matters; our faith is a living Tradition, not a dead thing we reconstructed in modern times. Remember, Orthodoxy is not a forensic religion. We don't base our beliefs on things dug out of the dirt.

But it's true that things dug out of the dirt back the position we have always held. Wink

The BS meter is on those who equate art with iconography, Cavemen drew pictures of men and buffalo in their caves...they weren't icons either.

Until you prove early Christians bowed to these images and kissed them, as you do, they are not guilty of your practices.

Logged

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

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


don't even go there!


« Reply #822 on: October 31, 2010, 10:08:55 PM »

Round and round we go, and where we stop ... nobody knows!

People keep giving you proofs which you reject, Alfred, so why should they bother making any further effort?

Klaatu barada nikto indeed!
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)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #823 on: October 31, 2010, 10:12:36 PM »

There are no First Second Third apologetic for icons because the Christian  church didn't use them.

LOL!



Here is the oldest Christian Church found to date, in Dura Europos. Note the iconography.



If they did, the Jews would have cited it as proof of idolatry and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew would have had a few chapters on it.

Unless the Jews also used iconography, in which case they would be in agreement and hence would have nothing to talk about.



Oops! Call the image police!

Besides, this is an assumption on your part. No one has any ability to say that if X was the case, it would necessarily have been mentioned in the Bible or the Fathers, or that such mentions would have survived. Not that it matters; our faith is a living Tradition, not a dead thing we reconstructed in modern times. Remember, Orthodoxy is not a forensic religion. We don't base our beliefs on things dug out of the dirt.

But it's true that things dug out of the dirt back the position we have always held. Wink

The BS meter is on those who equate art with iconography, Cavemen drew pictures of men and buffalo in their caves...they weren't icons either.

Until you prove early Christians bowed to these images and kissed them, as you do, they are not guilty of your practices.



Mr Persson, has it occurred to you that the distinction between the artistic and the religious is thoroughly modern and also thoroughly false?  The only crassly materialistic art is going to be made by crass materialists.

We don't need to prove that early Christians bowed to and kissed these images, any more than we need to prove that early Christians bowed to and kissed the Gospels.  We know that both were deeply important to the early Christians, were they not they would not exist.  We bow to and kiss icons and the Gospels because that is our form of reverence, because that is our way of showing that things are important to us, being the deposit of our Faith.  The art is sacred because what it depicts is sacred, whether it be hymns, narrative literature (the Gospels), or pictures.
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!
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #824 on: October 31, 2010, 10:27:59 PM »

Has anybody figured out yet that we all qualify as insane? Because we all keep arguing with Alfred Persson over and over again and expecting different results.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #825 on: October 31, 2010, 10:31:50 PM »

I just assumed people were still doing this because it was fun.
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #826 on: October 31, 2010, 10:32:14 PM »

Aren't we having fun yet?
Logged

Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #827 on: October 31, 2010, 10:36:09 PM »

I'm just here because I'm bored.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #828 on: October 31, 2010, 10:36:59 PM »

It's a great thread for boosting your posting stats.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #829 on: October 31, 2010, 10:47:25 PM »

Aren't we having fun yet?

I've always loved merry-go-rounds.

I've also always loved "Merry-Go-Round Broke Down".
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!
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #830 on: October 31, 2010, 11:10:12 PM »

Has anybody figured out yet that we all qualify as insane? Because we all keep arguing with Alfred Persson over and over again and expecting different results.

Call me an optimist.  I keep hoping Alfred will maybe, just maybe, be able to say, "You know what, I never thought of it that way. So when you say ______, you're saying that because ______?  I guess I could see why you'd say that if that's what you believe."   Tongue
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #831 on: October 31, 2010, 11:19:20 PM »

I was hoping he'd at least want to learn something about the background of the Orthodox Church. Too bad.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #832 on: October 31, 2010, 11:22:01 PM »

Has anybody figured out yet that we all qualify as insane? Because we all keep arguing with Alfred Persson over and over again and expecting different results.

Call me an optimist.  I keep hoping Alfred will maybe, just maybe, be able to say, "You know what, I never thought of it that way. So when you say ______, you're saying that because ______?  I guess I could see why you'd say that if that's what you believe."   Tongue

I guess I'm not as optimistic as you are.   Smiley
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #833 on: October 31, 2010, 11:30:17 PM »

Aren't we having fun yet?

I've always loved merry-go-rounds.

I've also always loved "Merry-Go-Round Broke Down".
You mean this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9S7yhD5M9A

and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q526mSA3TRs
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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


don't even go there!


« Reply #834 on: October 31, 2010, 11:38:36 PM »

I have a neat old CD with the Three Stooges (Larry, Moe and Curly Joe) singing that. Smiley
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #835 on: October 31, 2010, 11:40:05 PM »

Aren't we having fun yet?

I've always loved merry-go-rounds.

I've also always loved "Merry-Go-Round Broke Down".
You mean this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9S7yhD5M9A

and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q526mSA3TRs

And thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iyYjvNgmo

Props on the early Daffy clip!  Love that one!
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!
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: 37,866



« Reply #836 on: October 31, 2010, 11:46:10 PM »

So I'm actually gonna come down on Alfred's side on a certain point: the quotations ialmisry gave is St. John quoting something, but my copy of On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2003) states the following on p. 119:

St. Athanasius, from the hundred chapters written to Antiochus the ruler in the form of question and answer, chapter 38: [here follows the quotation, but the footnote to that introduction states thusly:]

"The 'Questions and Answers' (Erotapokriseis), wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius the Great (PG 28.621BC= Doctr. Patr. 327.16-328.3; the quotation in Doct. Patr. is longer than that cited by John, but textually much closer than that preserved in Migne."



I'm aware of that.  Since Aflred hasn't read St. John (as you point out, the translation notes the source of the quotaion), nor, as far as he has demonstrated thus far, anything attributed to or actually written by Pope St. Athanasius, he wasn't aware of that.  Now that you have done his homework for him, he will now go on with his assertions without facts.
Btw, to demonstrate my point, St. John also cites St. Athanasius "Against the Arians," quoted by the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea II:
Quote
5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? And why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds, 'that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. ' Moreover, He has added this again, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father ;' and there is one and the same sense in these three passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that 'He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father.' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, 'I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me. ' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.i.html
Yes, SCHAFF.

So have a passage in St. John from St. Athanasius where Pope St. Athanasius refers to the veneration of icons. But that isn't going to change things.  Alfred will just gloss over that inconvenient fact and continue to prattle on that it doesn't sound like St. Athanasius, blah...blah...blah.

So, Alfred, what cards YOU got?

Apropros, St. Athanasius starts this section (not quoted by St. John):
Quote
The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, 'When the impious comes into a depth of evils, he despises ;' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having 'a whore's forehead,' they 'refuse to be ashamed Jeremiah 3:3 ' before all men in their irreligion.
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #837 on: October 31, 2010, 11:58:26 PM »

I got to hand it to Isa; he never gives up.  I don't know where he gets the energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxafIhYFOr0&feature=related
 
Wink
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 #838 on: November 01, 2010, 01:09:45 AM »

So I'm actually gonna come down on Alfred's side on a certain point: the quotations ialmisry gave is St. John quoting something, but my copy of On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2003) states the following on p. 119:

St. Athanasius, from the hundred chapters written to Antiochus the ruler in the form of question and answer, chapter 38: [here follows the quotation, but the footnote to that introduction states thusly:]

"The 'Questions and Answers' (Erotapokriseis), wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius the Great (PG 28.621BC= Doctr. Patr. 327.16-328.3; the quotation in Doct. Patr. is longer than that cited by John, but textually much closer than that preserved in Migne."



I'm aware of that.  Since Aflred hasn't read St. John (as you point out, the translation notes the source of the quotaion), nor, as far as he has demonstrated thus far, anything attributed to or actually written by Pope St. Athanasius, he wasn't aware of that.  Now that you have done his homework for him, he will now go on with his assertions without facts.
Btw, to demonstrate my point, St. John also cites St. Athanasius "Against the Arians," quoted by the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea II:
Quote
5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? And why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds, 'that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. ' Moreover, He has added this again, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father ;' and there is one and the same sense in these three passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that 'He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father.' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, 'I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me. ' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.i.html
Yes, SCHAFF.

So have a passage in St. John from St. Athanasius where Pope St. Athanasius refers to the veneration of icons. But that isn't going to change things.  Alfred will just gloss over that inconvenient fact and continue to prattle on that it doesn't sound like St. Athanasius, blah...blah...blah.

So, Alfred, what cards YOU got?

Apropros, St. Athanasius starts this section (not quoted by St. John):
Quote
The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, 'When the impious comes into a depth of evils, he despises ;' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having 'a whore's forehead,' they 'refuse to be ashamed Jeremiah 3:3 ' before all men in their irreligion.

THAT is not the quote:

Quote from: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 04:31:13 PM
Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:

We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.


Find that quote in Athanasius, I do not believe Athanasius said that at all.

Just as John of Damascus thought he was quoting Dionysius, but was actually citing Pseudo-Dionysius, so also I think he confused a Pseudo-Athanasius with the real one.

You brought it up, you prove its valid.

I tried to find the quote in my copy of the Fathers, and could not.

You mentioned Schaff, I couldn't find it there either.

Everything John of Damascus said about Icons is a mistake. His misquotes go far to prove precisely that.


As for worshiping the Father via His Image the Son, THAT is OK, no lies in the image, Christ is the exact image of the Father:

the express image of His person (Heb 1:3 NKJ)


You cannot compare your two dimensional images with the Person of the Son, even you must admit that comparison is impossible:

18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? (Isa 40:18 KJV)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 01:16:51 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

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

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


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #839 on: November 01, 2010, 01:21:14 AM »

I was hoping he'd at least want to learn something about the background of the Orthodox Church. Too bad.

I have learned a lot, Orthodoxy isn't as scriptural as I thought it to be.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #840 on: November 01, 2010, 01:48:42 AM »

I was hoping he'd at least want to learn something about the background of the Orthodox Church. Too bad.

I have learned a lot, Orthodoxy isn't as scriptural as I thought it to be.

Honestly, I think you've concluded what you always wanted to believe anyway. Why should we be surprised?
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,889


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #841 on: November 01, 2010, 02:09:31 AM »

I was hoping he'd at least want to learn something about the background of the Orthodox Church. Too bad.

I have learned a lot, Orthodoxy isn't as scriptural as I thought it to be.


The very answer I would expect from someone who has no intention of learning anything about Orthodoxy, including setting foot in an Orthodox church during a service - any service - in the liturgical cycle. The hymnography of the Orthodox Church is loaded, soaking, overflowing with scripture. But, sadly, this is of no avail to the Alfred Perssons who refuse to accept this.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,331


WWW
« Reply #842 on: November 01, 2010, 02:14:11 AM »

I was hoping he'd at least want to learn something about the background of the Orthodox Church. Too bad.

I have learned a lot, Orthodoxy isn't as scriptural as I thought it to be.

May God Bless You and show you the fallacy of man-made theories of Biblical Inerrancy.
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: 37,866



« Reply #843 on: November 01, 2010, 01:20:43 PM »

So I'm actually gonna come down on Alfred's side on a certain point: the quotations ialmisry gave is St. John quoting something, but my copy of On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2003) states the following on p. 119:

St. Athanasius, from the hundred chapters written to Antiochus the ruler in the form of question and answer, chapter 38: [here follows the quotation, but the footnote to that introduction states thusly:]

"The 'Questions and Answers' (Erotapokriseis), wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius the Great (PG 28.621BC= Doctr. Patr. 327.16-328.3; the quotation in Doct. Patr. is longer than that cited by John, but textually much closer than that preserved in Migne."

I'm aware of that.  Since Aflred hasn't read St. John (as you point out, the translation notes the source of the quotaion), nor, as far as he has demonstrated thus far, anything attributed to or actually written by Pope St. Athanasius, he wasn't aware of that.  Now that you have done his homework for him, he will now go on with his assertions without facts.
Btw, to demonstrate my point, St. John also cites St. Athanasius "Against the Arians," quoted by the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea II:
Quote
5. And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? And why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds, 'that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me. ' Moreover, He has added this again, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father ;' and there is one and the same sense in these three passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoso enters into this, is convinced that 'He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father.' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor's image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, 'I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me. ' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.i.html
Yes, SCHAFF.

So have a passage in St. John from St. Athanasius where Pope St. Athanasius refers to the veneration of icons. But that isn't going to change things.  Alfred will just gloss over that inconvenient fact and continue to prattle on that it doesn't sound like St. Athanasius, blah...blah...blah.

So, Alfred, what cards YOU got?

Apropros, St. Athanasius starts this section (not quoted by St. John):
Quote
The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having once made up their minds to transgress and revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in appropriating the words of Scripture, 'When the impious comes into a depth of evils, he despises ;' for refutation does not stop them, nor perplexity abash them; but, as having 'a whore's forehead,' they 'refuse to be ashamed Jeremiah 3:3 ' before all men in their irreligion.

THAT is not the quote:

That wasn't the question.  The question was whether you have read either St. John or St. Athanasius, as you have demonstrated no knowledge of either.  If I want to discuss that quote, I'll talk with David B.

Quote
Quote from: ialmisry on August 17, 2010, 04:31:13 PM
Oh?  St. John of Damascus quotes Pope St. Athansius the Great in defense of the Holy Icons:

We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.


Find that quote in Athanasius, I do not believe Athanasius said that at all.

We all notice that you avoid responding to the quote from St. Athanasius' Orations against the Arians. Do you not beleive Pope St. Athanasius said that? On what "knowledge" do you base that?

Quote
Just as John of Damascus thought he was quoting Dionysius, but was actually citing Pseudo-Dionysius, so also I think he confused a Pseudo-Athanasius with the real one.

Since both "Pseudo-Athanasius" and "Pseudo-Dionysios" predate the iconoclasts by centuries, and were accepted by the iconoclasts as authorities alongside SS. Athanasius and Dionysios, not only you ignoring the valid point made in the quote does not help your argument but your questioning of the source fails to come to your rescue as well.

Btw, the writings of St. Athanasius form a source of the Erotapokriseis, like the Orations against the Arians which St. John, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and I quoted above.
http://www.kalleres.com/doc/15.3jacobs.pdf

Quote
You brought it up, you prove its valid.

You mean you want me to authenticate it. Do keep up.

The points are valid:

We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did.

God forbid, but we mark our lovingdesire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire.

Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph's staff, not honouring the staff but its owner.

Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection.

Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

They remain valid whether I, you, St. Athanasius or the devil himself say them (did the verses quoted by Satan in the wilderness to Christ cease to be truth thereby?). Pope St. Athanasius professes the same Faith that the Apostles, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, St. John and I profess, professing it in the quote the Fathers of the Council, St. John and I gave from St. Athanasius' orations against you Arians above, and this one too, from his letter to Bishop Adelphios against the Arians:

"We do not worship a creature. Far be the thought. For such an error belongs to heathens and Arians. But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God. For if the flesh also is in itself a part of the created world, yet it has become God's body. And we neither divide the body, being such, from the Word, and worship it by itself , nor when we wish to worship the Word do we set Him far apart from the Flesh, but knowing, as we said above, that 'the Word was made flesh,' we recognise Him as God also, after having come in the flesh. Who, accordingly, is so senseless as to say to the Lord: 'Leave the Body that I may worship You;' or so impious as to join the senseless Jews in saying, on account of the Body, 'Why do You, being a man, make Yourself God?' But the leper was not one of this sort, for he worshipped God in the Body, and recognised that He was God, saying, 'Lord, if You will You can make me clean.' Neither by reason of the Flesh did he think the Word of God a creature: nor because the Word was the maker of all creation did he despise the Flesh which He had put on. But he worshipped the Creator of the universe as dwelling in a created temple, So also the woman with an issue of blood, who believed, and only touched the hem of His garment, was healed, and the sea with its foaming waves heard the incarnate Word, and ceased its storm , while the man blind from birth was healed by the fleshly spitting of the Word. And, what is greater and more startling (for perhaps this even offended those most impious men), even when the Lord was hanging upon the actual cross (for it was His Body and the Word was in it), the sun was darkened and the earth shook, the rocks were rent, and the veil of the temple rent, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose...And let not the most impious Arian madmen suppose that, since the Body is created, the Word also is a creature, nor let them, because the Word is not a creature, disparage His Body. For their error is matter for wonder, in that they at once confuse and disturb everything, and devise pretexts only in order to number the Creator among the creatures.
But let them listen. If the Word were a creature, He would not assume the created body to quicken it. For what help can creatures derive from a creature that itself needs salvation? But since the Word being Creator has Himself made the creatures, therefore also at the consummation of the ages He put on the creature, that He as creator might once more consecrate it, and be able to recover it. But a creature could never be saved by a creature, any more than the creatures were created by a creature, if the Word was not creator. Accordingly let them not lie against the divine Scriptures nor give offense to simple brethren; but if they are willing let them change their mind in their turn, and no longer worship the creature instead of God, Who made all things. But if they wish to abide by their impieties, let them alone take their fill of them, and let them gnash their teeth like their father the devil, because the Faith of the Catholic Church knows that the Word of God is creator and maker of all things; and we know that while 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' now that He has become also man for our salvation we worship Him, not as though He had come in the body equalising Himself with it, but as Master, assuming the form of the servant, and Maker and Creator coming in a creature in order that, in it delivering all things, He might bring the world near to the Father, and make all things to be at peace, things in heaven and things on the earth. For thus also we recognise His Godhead, even the Father's, and worship His Incarnate Presence, even if the Arian madmen burst themselves in sunder."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iv.xv.html

and from his "On the Incarnation":
"For as, when the likeness painted on a panel has been effaced by stains from without, he whose likeness it is must needs come once more to enable the portrait to be renewed on the same wood: for, for the sake of his picture, even the mere wood on which it is painted is not thrown away, but the outline is renewed upon it; in the same way also the most holy Son of the Father, being the icon of the Father, came to our region to renew man once made in His likeness."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xiv.html

And from his Orations Against the Arians:
"However here too they introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise ‘one,’ or ‘like,’ as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves would have it.  For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father’s teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this.  Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? for if therefore the Son and the Father are One and if in this way the Word is like the Father, it follows fortwith that the Angels too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God’s Icon and Word. But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image? for among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs...And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, ‘I and the Father are One,’ or, ‘I in the Father, and the Father in Me;’ but it is said of all of them, ‘Who is like unto Thee among the gods, O Lord? and who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods?’ and of Him on the contrary that He only is Icon true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the Icon, and called both icon and glory of God, yet not on our own account still, but for that Icon and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation.  This their notion then being evidently unseemly and irrational as well as the rest, the likeness and the oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son; for unless it be so taken, He will not be shown to have anything beyond things originate, as has been said, nor will He be like the Father, but He will be like the Father’s doctrines; and He differs from the Father, in that the Father is Father, but the doctrines and teaching are the Father’s. If then in respect to the doctrines and the teaching the Son is like the Father, then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Icon, or rather will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father; for what likeness or propriety has he who is so utterly different from the Father? for Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like ‘Him in essence.'  Having then such notions, they speak falsely; whereas the Son and the Father are one in such wise as has been said, and in such wise is the Son like the Father Himself and from Him, as we may see and understand son to be towards father, and as we may see the radiance towards the sun. Such then being the Son, therefore when the Son works, the Father is the Worker, and the Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who cometh in the Son, as He promised when He said, ‘I and My Father will come, and will make Our abode with him;’ for in the Icon is contemplated the Father....And if the Patriarch Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim and Manasses, said, ‘God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which delivered me from all evil, bless the lads,’ yet none of created and natural Angels did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him, did he from Angel ask the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying, ‘Who delivered me from all evil,’ he shewed that it was no created Angel, but the Word of God,...,’ he said that none other than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he desired a blessing for himself from God but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but whom He Himself had besought saying, ‘I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me’ (for that was God, as he says himself, ‘I have seen God face to face’), Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph...Therefore it was no other than the Lord God Himself whom he had seen, who said to him, ‘And behold I am with thee, to guard thee in all the way whither thou goest;'...For divine Scripture wishing us thus to understand the matter, has given such illustrations, as we have said above, from which we are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and to refute the allegation of Gentiles who maintain and think, on account of the Trinity, that we profess many gods...Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism...Wherefore then, when the Arians have these speculations and views, do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles? for they too, as these, worship the creature rather than God the Creator of all, and though they shrink from the Gentile name, in order to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretly hold a like sentiment with them.  And though the Greeks worship one Unoriginate and many originate, but these one Unoriginate and one originate, this is no difference from them; for the God whom they call originate is one out of many, and again the many gods of the Greeks have the same nature with this one, for both he and they are creatures. Unhappy are they, and the more for that their hurt is from thinking against Christ; for they have fallen from the truth, and are greater traitors than the Jews in denying the Christ, and they wallow with the Gentiles, hateful as they are to God, worshipping the creature and many deities...Suitably has He joined the ‘Word’ to the ‘Form,’ to show that the Word of God is Himself Icon and Expression and Form of His Father; and that the Jews who did not receive Him who spoke to them, thereby did not receive the Word, which is the Form of God. This too it was that the Patriarch Jacob having seen, received a blessing from Him and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as divine Scripture witnesses, saying, ‘And as he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose upon him.' And This it was who said, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,’
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.iii.html

And:
"I did indeed think that enough had been said already against the hollow professors of Arius’s madness, whether for their refutation or in the truth’s behalf, to insure a cessation and repentance of their evil thoughts and words about the Saviour. They, however, for whatever reason, still do not succumb; but, as swine and dogs wallow in their own vomit and their own mire, rather invent new expedients for their irreligion...But although they might have learned from what is said above, had they not utterly lost their power of apprehension, that the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing it (for, being God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures and works that we say, ‘out of nothing,’ and ‘it was not before its generation’), yet since, as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they are accustomed to allege the aforesaid passages of divine Scripture, which have a good meaning, but are by them practised on, let us proceed afresh to take up the question of the sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to shew from each of these passages that they have no knowledge at all of Christianity. Were it otherwise, they would not have shut themselves up in the unbelief of the present Jews,  but would have inquired and learned...that it was said of Him, as by John, ‘The Word became flesh...so by Paul...and again, ‘He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant...For all these texts have the same force and meaning, a religious one, declarative of the divinity of the Word, even those of them which speak humanly concerning Him, as having become the Son of man...If then He be not a Son, let Him be called a work, and let all that is said of works be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone be called Son, nor Word, nor Wisdom; neither let God be called Father, but only Framer and Creator of things which by Him come to be; and let the creature be Image and Expression of His framing will, and let Him, as they would have it, be without generative nature, so that there be neither Word, nor Wisdom, no, nor Icon, of His proper substance. For if He be not Son, neithe is He Icon...As we have shown then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work, and it follows that we all of necessity confess that He is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He is, and a son is confessed to be not external to his father but from him, let them not question about the terms, as I said before, which the sacred writers use of the Word Himself, viz. not ‘to Him that begat Him,’ but ‘to Him that made Him;’ for while it is confessed what His nature is, what word is used in such instances need raise no question. For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather that Nature draws to Itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when the essence is a work or creature, then the words ‘He made,’ and ‘He became,’ and ‘He created,’ are used of it properly, and designate the work. But when the Essence is an Offspring and Son, then ‘He made,’ and ‘He became,’ and ‘He created,’ no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but ‘He made’ we use without question for ‘He begat.’ Thus fathers often call the sons born of them their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature; and often they affectionately call their own servants children, yet without putting out of sight their purchase of them originally; for they use the one appellation from their authority as being fathers, but in the other they speak from affection."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iii.i.html

And from his letter to Bishop Adelphios against the Arians:
"But we should like your piety to ask them this. When Israel was ordered to go up to Jerusalem to worship at the temple of the Lord, where was the ark, 'and above it the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the Mercy-seat,' did they do well or the opposite? If they did ill, how came it that they who despised this law were liable to punishment? For it is written that if a man make light of it and go not up, he shall perish from among the people. But if they did well, and in this proved well-pleasing to God, are not the Arians, abominable and most shameful of any heresy, many times worthy of destruction, in that while they approve the former People for the honour paid by them to the Temple, they will not worship the Lord Who is in the flesh as in a temple? And yet the former temple was constructed of stones and gold, as a shadow. But when the reality came, the type ceased from thenceforth, and there did not remain, according to the Lord's utterance, one stone upon another that was not broken down. And they did not, when they saw the temple of stones, suppose that the Lord who spoke in the temple was a creature; nor did they set the Temple at nought and retire far off to worship. But they came to it according to the Law, and worshipped the God who uttered His oracles from the Temple. Since then this was so, how can it be other than right to worship the Body of the Lord, all-holy and all-reverend as it is, announced as it was by the archangel Gabriel, formed by the Holy Spirit, and made the Vesture of the Word? It was at any rate a bodily hand that the Word stretched out to raise her that was sick of a fever: a human voice that He uttered to raise Lazarus from the dead; and, once again, stretching out His hands upon the Cross, He overthrew the prince of the power of the air, that now works in the sons of disobedience, and made the way clear for us into the heavens.  Therefore he that dishonours the Temple dishonours the Lord in the Temple; and he that separates the Word from the Body sets at nought the grace given to us in Him."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iv.xv.html

Quote
I tried to find the quote in my copy of the Fathers, and could not.


Yeah, no Fathers in Bibleworks. Just Protestant speculations.

Quote
You mentioned Schaff, I couldn't find it there either.

Links provided above.

Quote
Everything John of Damascus said about Icons is a mistake. His misquotes go far to prove precisely that.

We all notice that you continue to refuse to address the quotation from St. Athanasius' Oration against the Arians, quoted by St. John (and the Fathers at Nicea II), as you will not address, no doubt, the quotations from St. Athanasius and the links to Schaff above.  St. John expression of the Orthodox Faith is not mistaken.  Your twisting of the Scriptures is.  And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of Christ's image. For in the image is the shape and form of Christ, and in Christ is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of Christ in the image is exact; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it Christ; and he again who sees Christ, recognises that it is He who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view Christ, the image might say, 'I and Christ are one; for I am in Him, and He in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in Him, and what you have seen in Him, that you hold in me. ' Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships Christ also; for the image is His form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father's Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son


Quote
As for worshiping the Father via His Image the Son, THAT is OK, no lies in the image, Christ is the exact image of the Father:

the express image of His person (Heb 1:3 NKJ)


You cannot compare your two dimensional images with the Person of the Son,

As shown above, St. Athanasius, like St. John, does.

Quote
even you must admit that comparison is impossible:

Only if I was foolish enough to embrace your Arianism.

Quote
18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? (Isa 40:18 KJV)
His Icon.
2 Corin. 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same icon from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.  4:1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the Icon of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg461788.html#msg461788
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29148.0.html
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #844 on: November 01, 2010, 01:54:27 PM »

I was hoping he'd at least want to learn something about the background of the Orthodox Church. Too bad.

I have learned a lot, Orthodoxy isn't as scriptural as I thought it to be.

Yes: it is more so (as it is not how scripture is, but how Orthodox Scripture).  And you are as the Scriptures describe you:

John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
6:66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

II Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #845 on: July 24, 2011, 11:08:28 AM »

These arguments are rather foolish. No disrespect to Alfred Persson, but why is he spouting his Protestant agenda on an Orthodox forum? Sir, did you expect your arguments to be well-received?

I will address the Christological arguments for now:

Objection 1:
Icons are monophysitic because they confuse the two natures in one icon.

Answer 1: So, does that mean humans blend our two natures (I.e. the soul and the body) when we are depicted in one photograph? Only the manhood (Namely, the human body) of our Lord is depicted because things of Godhead are by nature invisible and intangible while things of manhood are depictable/tangible.

Objection 2:
Icons are Nestorian because they tear the human nature away from the divine nature, depicting only the manhood of Christ.

Answer 2: How can Icons be both Nestorian and Monophysite at the same time? They are polar opposite heresies! Furthermore, Icons do not tear the two natures away from each other because all Orthodox Icons of Christ depict a duality of natures. Icons always stress the indivisibility of Christ's natures. For example:

Here the crucified Christ's body is laid in the tomb, yet a cruciform halo surrounds his head to show that the divinity did not separate from his body, even at death, though his soul separated from his body.

God bless you,
Severian
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 11:09:01 AM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
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 #846 on: July 24, 2011, 11:21:29 AM »

Wh ... (rubs eyes) ... STILL???  Shocked

Holy Resurrected Thread, Batman!!  It never ends!!!   Grin
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)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #847 on: July 24, 2011, 11:31:15 PM »

Wh ... (rubs eyes) ... STILL???  Shocked

Holy Resurrected Thread, Batman!!  It never ends!!!   Grin
Indeed! Alfred has already been pestering us on one thread. Why give him a second by waking this old dog?
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #848 on: July 24, 2011, 11:42:21 PM »

Wh ... (rubs eyes) ... STILL???  Shocked

Holy Resurrected Thread, Batman!!  It never ends!!!   Grin
Indeed! Alfred has already been pestering us on one thread. Why give him a second by waking this old dog?
The dog hasn't thrown up yet.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #849 on: July 25, 2011, 01:19:20 AM »

Wh ... (rubs eyes) ... STILL???  Shocked

Holy Resurrected Thread, Batman!!  It never ends!!!   Grin
Indeed! Alfred has already been pestering us on one thread. Why give him a second by waking this old dog?
I didn't know, sorry guys... Sad
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 01:35:35 AM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
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 0.215 seconds with 66 queries.