When were icons first introduced & can be proven?

[yeshuaisiam]

Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.

You are an iconoclast.

I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity

Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.

No, you do not.

Why else do I ask for it so much?

To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)

The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....

Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.

And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.

so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.

Look, I'm too old for pot shots, really don't care.

If you believe this about Polycarp, you need to seriously look into the Greek letters and the mistranslations of them, including the Didache.

[Fabio Leite]

Basically in his hagiography it is said he was martyred on the Great Sabbath. From the adjective "great" some people make the leap that they observed Jewish rites.

The "Great Sabbath" ControversyAs an aside, some scholars have used the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which states that the bishop was taken on the day of the Sabbath and killed on the Great Sabbath, to demonstrate that the Smyrnaeans under Polycarp observed the seventh day as a Sabbath.

Historians such as William Cave who have written, "… the Sabbath or Saturday (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion."[13]

Conversely, some feel that the expression "the Great Sabbath" refers to the Christian Passover or another annual holy day. If so, then the martyrdom would have had to occur between one and two months later as Nisan 14 (the date that Polycarp observed Passover) cannot come before the end of March in any year. Other Great Sabbaths (if this is referring to what are commonly considered to be Jewish holy days, though observed by many early professors of Christ) come in the Spring, late summer, or Fall. None occur in the winter.[14]

These conjectures would be at odds with the Biblical evidence that suggests the common practice for Christians was in keeping the first day of the week (see Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Mark 16:9; etc.), though they could potentially be compatible with the Great Sabbath alluded to in the Gospel of John (John 7:37).[15] This is called the Last Great Day and is a stand-alone annual holy day immediately following the Feast of Tabernacles.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Saint_Polycarp#The_.22Great_Sabbath.22_Controversy

The difference that having the Tradition of the Church makes. Where there is evidence of continuity, some want to see rupture.

Holy Week
From OrthodoxWiki

 
A worshiper prostrates before the cross at the Twelve Passion Gospels service at St. Mary Orthodox Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Great and Holy Week is the week from the conclusion of Great Lent on the Saturday of Lazarus to the celebration of Pascha. It is emphasized that the services of Holy Week follow the ecclesiastical day, that is from sundown to sundown. Thus Saturday of Lazarus ends at sundown on Saturday.


(...)
Holy Saturday

Great and Holy Saturday Vespers and a Divine Liturgy of St. Basil are served, marked with readings of Psalms and Resurrection hymns that tell of Christ's descent into Hades, celebrated as the "First Resurrection" of Adam and the conquering of Death.


(...)

Please cite a source for the worship practices of Saint Polycarp. Thank You.

[Romaios]

As stated in prior posts, St. Polycarp worshiped on the Sabbath, held the Jewish feasts

Proof?

The only extant letter he wrote mentions none of these, but has this to say about St. Ignatius of Antioch:

I urge all of you, therefore, to obey the teaching about righteousness and to exercise unlimited endurance, like that which you saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus but also in others from your congregation and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles; be assured that all these “did not run in vain”, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are now in the place due them with the Lord, with whom they also suffered together.

Here's what the latter has to say about Judaizing:

Let us not, then, be insensible to his goodness! For if he imitates us in our actions, we no longer exist! Therefore let us become his disciples and learn to live according to Christianity. For one who is called by any name other than this, is not of God. Set aside, then, the evil leaven, old and sour, and turn to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with him to keep anyone among you from being spoiled, since you will be convicted by your odor. It is ridiculous to profess Jesus Christ and to Judaize; for Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, into which every tongue that has believed in God has been gathered together.

See also:

And next, I imagine that you are most desirous of hearing something on this point, that the Christians do not observe the same forms of divine worship as do the Jews. The Jews, then, if they abstain from the kind of service above described, and deem it proper to worship one God as being Lord of all, [are right]; but if they offer Him worship in the way which we have described, they greatly err. (...) But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,--I do not think that you require to learn anything from me.

Source

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

[Brigidsboy]

Thank You Fabiola and Romaios.

[ialmisry]

Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.

You are an iconoclast.

I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity

Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.

No, you do not.

Why else do I ask for it so much?

To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)

The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....

Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.

And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.

so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.

Look, I'm too old for pot shots, really don't care.

If you believe this about Polycarp, you need to seriously look into the Greek letters and the mistranslations of them, including the Didache.

unlike you, I can read the original.  One reason why I stick to original Christianity.

[ialmisry]

As stated in prior posts, St. Polycarp worshiped on the Sabbath, held the Jewish feasts

Proof?

The only extant letter he wrote mentions none of these, but has this to say about St. Ignatius of Antioch:

I urge all of you, therefore, to obey the teaching about righteousness and to exercise unlimited endurance, like that which you saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus but also in others from your congregation and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles; be assured that all these “did not run in vain”, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are now in the place due them with the Lord, with whom they also suffered together.

Here's what the latter has to say about Judaizing:

Let us not, then, be insensible to his goodness! For if he imitates us in our actions, we no longer exist! Therefore let us become his disciples and learn to live according to Christianity. For one who is called by any name other than this, is not of God. Set aside, then, the evil leaven, old and sour, and turn to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with him to keep anyone among you from being spoiled, since you will be convicted by your odor. It is ridiculous to profess Jesus Christ and to Judaize; for Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, into which every tongue that has believed in God has been gathered together.

Just before this, St. Ignatius writes:

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day [i.e. Sunday], on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, having come, raised them from the dead. Matthew 27:52

[Jovan]

Your fair and full documentation of early Christianity my dear brother yeshuanism, doesn´t appear on the historical map until the 3rd century aswell. We sit in the same boat, if we use the same standards. Why do you use a specific standard regarding scripture, which as iconography, was well kept through tradition, not writings. If you wanna justify your faith without the church, you have to rely on manuscripts in the size of visa cards to trust what you believe.

Same standard, please.

[Jovan]

If you argue against, show me entire copies of a new testament book, and even the entire bible as a whole to prove your case. Or else I can´t trust your version of early Christianity :/

[NicholasMyra]

 Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts..... 

So do we. Just not the post-revolt rabbinic interpretation of those feasts.

[William]

I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).

I don't know if jesusisiamism accepts independent evidence as proof. (btw, at the LATEST, this grafitto dates two centuries after the Crucifixion, and might just be one century after, or even less).

Maybe jesusisiam can pitch his views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Seminar

I can't believe you guys are using this as an example.

This is also called the "blasphemo", and was drawn by people mocking Christians worshiping their "God".

So the forum of Orthodox Christians uses art that mocked early Christians as an example to justify iconography.

I mean... guys - really?

Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.

[Mor Ephrem]

Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.

Not that I'm one to agree with YiM on issues like this, but I do wonder if he has a point here.  Is the graffito depicting a man worshiping before or venerating an image of the Crucified, or is it ridiculing the idea of a man worshiping a crucified man as God?  What little reading I've done about depictions of the Crucifixion, the crucifix, etc. led me to believe that the development of the Cross as a religious image looks something like this:

"Empty" Cross --> Cross with a living Christ depicted as a king/priest --> Cross with the dead/dying Christ

If that's true, then this example of an image of a crucified man (albeit with an animal's head) is unique for its antiquity but doesn't really "fit" in the overall development.  Is there something else I'm missing?  I still think YiM's approach and most of his conclusions are nonsensical, but I wonder if this is a "stopped clock" moment...

[lovetzatziki]

After the death and resurrection of Christ the new faith spread rapidly throughout the Roman world and the Near East. The stories of the Apostles and early witnesses who had seen and known Christ Himself were eagerly listened to by the converts to the new faith. Naturally, people who had seen Christ asked for descriptions of His appearance. At some point people began to create and distribute paintings of Christ. This also included his disciples and the reall martyrs of the Christian faith. The earliest images we know of was a statue of Christ which Eusebius, an important early Christian bishop, says had been set up in Caesarea-Phillipi (Paneaus) by the woman healed by Christ of an issue of blood. He also notes that in his time there were very ancient images of Peter and Paul.

However, the church was somewhat divided about images of Christ.
Eusebius refused to send the wife of Caesar Callus an image of Christ, for he thought it is idolatrous and a violation of Biblical injunctions. Some regional churches were against images as well, a local Spanish synod in 305 said images in churches were forbidden. However, the number of examples of paintings of the nativity and allegories of the Good Shepherd from around 250 AD, show how common Christian paintings had already become. The growth of images was concurrent with the development of the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ and is closely tied to the growing awareness of this essential element of the Christian faith.

In early Christian times there were two images of Christ that were more or less standardized. One was of a young, idealized and clean shaven "hero" type. The second was the image we are familiar with today - a man in his late 20's or early 30's with long hair tied at the back, a smooth beard,

 

 http://www.kurskroot.com/history_of_icons.html

The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the late 2nd to early 4th centuries on the walls of tombs belonging, most likely, to wealthy[6] Christians in the catacombs of Rome, although from literary evidence there may well have been panel icons which, like almost all classical painting, have disappeared.
Initially Jesus was represented indirectly by pictogram symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), the peacock, or an anchor (the Labarum or Chi-Rho was a later development). Later personified symbols were used, including Jonah, whose three days in the belly of the whale pre-figured the interval between Christ's death and Resurrection; Daniel in the lion's den; or Orpheus charming the animals.[7] The Tomb of the Julii has a famous but unique mosaic of Christ as Sol Invictus, a sun-god.[8] The image of "The Good Shepherd", a beardless youth in pastoral scenes collecting sheep, was the most common of these images, and was probably not understood as a portrait of the historical Jesus at this period.[9] It continues the classical Kriophoros, and in some cases may also represent the Shepherd of Hermas, a popular Christian literary work of the 2nd century.[10]
Among the earliest depictions clearly intended to directly represent Jesus himself are many showing him as a baby, usually held by his mother, especially in the Adoration of the Magi, seen as the first theophany, or display of the incarnate Christ to the world at large.[11] The oldest known portrait of Jesus, found in Syria and dated to about 235, shows him as a beardless young man of authoritative and dignified bearing. He is depicted dressed in the style of a young philosopher, with close-cropped hair and wearing a tunic and pallium – signs of good breeding in Greco-Roman society. From this, it is evident that some early Christians paid no heed to the historical context of Jesus being a Jew and visualised him solely in terms of their own social context, as a quasi-heroic figure, without supernatural attributes such as a halo (a fourth-century innovation).
From the 3rd century onwards, the first narrative scenes from the Life of Christ to be clearly seen are the Baptism of Christ, painted in a catacomb in about 200,[18] and the miracle of the Raising of Lazarus,[19] both of which can be clearly identified by the inclusion of the dove of the Holy Spirit in Baptisms, and the vertical, shroud-wrapped body of Lazarus. Other scenes remain ambiguous – an agape feast may be intended as a Last Supper, but before the development of a recognised physical appearance for Christ, and attributes such as the halo, it is impossible to tell, as tituli or captions are rarely used. There are some surviving scenes from Christ's Works of about 235 from the Dura Europos church on the Persian frontier of the Empire. During the 4th century a much greater number of scenes came to be depicted,[20] usually showing Christ as youthful, beardless and with short hair that does not reach his shoulders, although there is considerable variation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

Rome, Catacombs of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter – Noah in the Ark   
There are also representations of the young people of Babylonia rescued from the flames of the furnace, Susan saved from the snares of the elders, Noah who escaped the flood, and Daniel who stayed unharmed in the lions’ den.

From the New Testament, the miracles are chosen of healing (the blind man, the paralytic, the hemorrhaging woman) and resurrection (Lazarus, the widow of Naim’s son, Jairus’ daughter), but also other episodes, such as the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well and the multiplication of the loaves.

Rome, Catacombs of St. Sebastian – Funeral inscription with symbols   
The art of the catacombs is also a symbolic art in the sense that some concepts which are difficult to express are represented in a simple way. To indicate Christ a fish is depicted; to signify the peace of heaven a dove is represented; to express firmness of faith an anchor is drawn. On the closing slabs of the loculi, symbols with different meanings are often engraved. In some cases, a tool is depicted which indicates the dead person’s trade in life. Some symbols, such as glasses, loaves of bread and amphorae, allude to the funeral meals consumed in honor of the deceased, the so-called refrigeria. Most of the symbols refer to eternal salvation, such as the dove, the palm, the peacock, the phoenix and the lamb.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – Our Lady with the Prophet

The catacombs and the Mother of God. In the Roman catacombs the most ancient image is preserved of Our Lady who is depicted in a painting in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The fresco, which can be dated back to the first half of the third century, depicts the Virgin with the Child on her knees in front of a prophet (perhaps Balaam or Isaiah) who is pointing to a star to refer to the messianic prediction. In the catacombs other episodes with Our Lady are also represented such as the Adoration of the Magi and scenes from the Christmas crib, but it is thought that prior to the Council of Ephesus, all these representations had a Christological and not a Mariological significance.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd in the catacombs. One of the images represented the most in the art of the catacombs is the Good Shepherd. While the model is taken from pagan culture, it immediately takes on a Christological significance inspired by the parable of the lost sheep. Christ is thus represented as a humble shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders as he watches over his little flock that is sometimes made up of only two sheep placed at his sides.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/archeo/inglese/documents/rc_com_archeo_doc_20011010_cataccrist_en.html#Arte

The Catacombs of Rome (Italian: Catacombe di Roma) are ancient catacombs, underground burial places under Rome, Italy, of which there are at least forty, some discovered only in recent decades. Though most famous for Christian burials, either in separate catacombs or mixed together, they began in the 2nd century,[1] much as a response to overcrowding and shortage of land. Many scholars have written that catacombs came about to help persecuted Christians to bury their dead secretly. The soft volcanic tuff rock under Rome is highly suitable for tunnelling, as it is softer when first exposed to air, hardening afterwards. Many have kilometres of tunnels, in up to four storeys (or layers).
The Christian catacombs are extremely important for the art history of early Christian art, as they contain the great majority of examples from before about 400 AD, in fresco and sculpture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome

So no icons from the 1st or 2nd century, no writings about venerating icons in the 1st or 2nd century, but all came 3rd or later.   But they are a tremendous part of the EO faith, involved in practically every form of EO worship.

On the contrary plenty of icons in the 2nd century. The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the 2nd century. Plenty of biblical depiction in the Roman Catacombs. As someone else said, the first Christians were to busy being persecuted to draw christian art. Even so there is a lot of Christian art in all the centuries of Christianity, even from the beginning , if we are to consider the Acheiropoieta images. I read that this symbols of faith were also depicted in Christian homes and probably in Christian Churches (see the Dura-Europos church) , the underground Churches in Rome, etc. Even Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria speak of Christian art, the Shepherd on cups , seal rings , etc. Eusebius writes of an ancient statue of Christ in Caesarea-Phillipi of the woman with the issue of blood. So yes Christian art always existed. The role of icons was to represent the gospel in images and the symbols of our faith. There are also Church fathers that took defense on icons and venerating icons, even from the 4th century if not earlier. Sts Basil the Great and Chrysostomus come to mind. Veneration comes natural. It's the natural feeling of honour towards everything that is meek. The same is with icons and with everything that belongs to the Church. The Church is not called Orthodox for nothing.

[ialmisry]

I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).

I don't know if jesusisiamism accepts independent evidence as proof. (btw, at the LATEST, this grafitto dates two centuries after the Crucifixion, and might just be one century after, or even less).

Maybe jesusisiam can pitch his views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Seminar

I can't believe you guys are using this as an example.

This is also called the "blasphemo", and was drawn by people mocking Christians worshiping their "God".

So the forum of Orthodox Christians uses art that mocked early Christians as an example to justify iconography.

I mean... guys - really?

Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.

You just went over his head.

[ialmisry]

Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.

I disagree, we have a ton from that time.  Lot's of writings.  Lot's of history.  Lot's of artifacts.

You can disagree to your heart's content: unfortunately, it doesn't multiply the evidence.  We don't even have a "ton from that time" on what the Caesars were doing, let alone the Christians.

If I have pet beliefs, why are my beliefs written about in the scriptures, documented from early Christianity

They're not, as has been repeatedly shown to you, from your odd idea that we have to call Jesus "yeshua," mispronouncing the name in Aramaic, to the observance of the Kosher laws, questioning the Apostleship of St. Paul, etc.

whereas iconography is not.  I mean, let's really consider who has a pet belief.

Yes, let's.  The Church, which was around in the 1st century, or you, who has no connection to the 1st century or Palestine.

Not a hard conclusion to make.

Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.

No, simplistic.

For example, every Roman emperor had official portraits made, which were copied and distributed throughout the empire, to all levels of society).

out of the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of portraits made for each of the nearly one hundred emperors from Augustus to Constantine, only this one has survived.


Given that these state sponsored images did not survive, how do you expect those images whose possession was a capital offense should survive in profusion?

Then there is the question of those which survive being "restored," like this one in San Marco, going from something like this

to this in a Renaissance "restoration"

[yeshuaisiam]

Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.

I disagree, we have a ton from that time.  Lot's of writings.  Lot's of history.  Lot's of artifacts.

You can disagree to your heart's content: unfortunately, it doesn't multiply the evidence.  We don't even have a "ton from that time" on what the Caesars were doing, let alone the Christians.

If I have pet beliefs, why are my beliefs written about in the scriptures, documented from early Christianity

They're not, as has been repeatedly shown to you, from your odd idea that we have to call Jesus "yeshua," mispronouncing the name in Aramaic, to the observance of the Kosher laws, questioning the Apostleship of St. Paul, etc.

whereas iconography is not.  I mean, let's really consider who has a pet belief.

Yes, let's.  The Church, which was around in the 1st century, or you, who has no connection to the 1st century or Palestine.

Not a hard conclusion to make.

Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.

No, simplistic.

For example, every Roman emperor had official portraits made, which were copied and distributed throughout the empire, to all levels of society).

out of the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of portraits made for each of the nearly one hundred emperors from Augustus to Constantine, only this one has survived.


Given that these state sponsored images did not survive, how do you expect those images whose possession was a capital offense should survive in profusion?

Then there is the question of those which survive being "restored," like this one in San Marco, going from something like this

to this in a Renaissance "restoration"

I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived.  If they are a large part of the EO worship, and if EO is "The church", then certainly there should at least be some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon.

[Mor Ephrem]

I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived. 

If a painting doesn't happen to survive, a book certainly should?  On what basis?   

[ialmisry]

Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.

Not that I'm one to agree with YiM on issues like this, but I do wonder if he has a point here.  Is the graffito depicting a man worshiping before or venerating an image of the Crucified, or is it ridiculing the idea of a man worshiping a crucified man as God?  What little reading I've done about depictions of the Crucifixion, the crucifix, etc. led me to believe that the development of the Cross as a religious image looks something like this:

"Empty" Cross --> Cross with a living Christ depicted as a king/priest --> Cross with the dead/dying Christ

If that's true, then this example of an image of a crucified man (albeit with an animal's head) is unique for its antiquity but doesn't really "fit" in the overall development.  Is there something else I'm missing?  I still think YiM's approach and most of his conclusions are nonsensical, but I wonder if this is a "stopped clock" moment...

The pagans had claimed that the Jews worshipped the ass, as Josephus has to protest:

However, I cannot but admire those other authors who furnished this man with such his materials; I mean Possidonius and Apollonius [the son of] Molo, who, while they accuse us for not worshipping the same gods whom others worship, they think themselves not guilty of impiety when they tell lies of us, and frame absurd and reproachful stories about our temple; whereas it is a most shameful thing for freemen to forge lies on any occasion, and much more so to forge them about our temple, which was so famous over all the world, and was preserved so sacred by us; for Apion hath the impudence to pretend that" the Jews placed an ass's head in their holy place;" and he affirms that this was discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes spoiled our temple, and found that ass's head there made of gold, and worth a great deal of money.

Tertullian towards the end of the second century responded to this calumny, and the extension of it (even by Jews) against the Christians:

In this matter we are (said to be) guilty not merely of forsaking the religion of the community, but of introducing a monstrous superstition; for some among you have dreamed that our god is an ass's head,--an absurdity which Cornelius Tacitus first suggested. In the fourth book of his histories, where he is treating of the Jewish war, he begins his description with the origin of that nation, and gives his own views respecting both the origin and the name of their religion. He relates that the Jews, in their migration in the desert, when suffering for want of water, escaped by following for guides some wild asses, which they supposed to be going in quest of water after pasture, and that on this account the image of one of these animals was worshipped by the Jews. From this, I suppose, it was presumed that we, too, from our close connection with the Jewish religion, have ours consecrated under the same emblematic form. The same Cornelius Tacitus, however,--who, to say the truth, is most loquacious in falsehood--forgetting his later statement, relates how Pompey the Great, after conquering the Jews and capturing Jerusalem, entered the temple, but found nothing in the shape of an image, though he examined the place carefully. Where, then, should their God have been found? Nowhere else, of course than in so memorable a temple which was carefully shut to all but the priests, and into which there could be no fear of a stranger entering. But what apology must I here offer for what I am going to say, when I have no other object at the moment than to make a passing remark or two in a general way which shall be equally applicable to yourselves? Suppose that our God, then, be an asinine person, will you at all events deny that you possess the same characteristics with ourselves in that matter? (Not their heads only, but) entire asses, are, to be sure, objects of adoration to you, along with their tutelar Epona; and all herds, and cattle, and beasts you consecrate, and their stables into the bargain! This, perhaps, is your grievance against us, that, when surrounded by cattle-worshippers of every kind we are simply devoted to asses!....Report has introduced a new calumny respecting our God. Not so long ago, a most abandoned wretch in that city of yours, a man who had deserted indeed his own religion--a Jew, in fact, who had only lost his skin, flayed of course by wild beasts, against which he enters the lists for hire day after day with a sound body, and so in a condition to lose his skin--carried about in public a caricature of us with this label: Onocoetes ["Ass-born"]. This (figure) had ass's ears, and was dressed in a toga with a book, having a hoof on one of his feet. And the crowd believed this infamous Jew. For what other set of men is the seed-plot of all the calumny against us? Throughout the city, therefore, Onocoetes is all the talk. As, however, it is less then "a nine days' wonder," and so destitute of all authority from time, and weak enough from the character of its author, I shall gratify myself by using it simply in the way of a retort. Let us then see whether you are not here also found in our company. Now it matters not what their form may be, when our concern is about deformed images. You have amongst you gods with a dog's head, and a lion's head, with the horns of a cow, and a ram, and a goat, goat-shaped or serpent-shaped, and winged in foot, head, and back. Why therefore brand our one God so conspicuously? Many an Onocoetes is found amongst yourselves.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html

In between Tertullian talks about the "worship" (i.e. veneration) of the Cross, which he doesn't deny, but rather shows the pagans worship the same: "As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god..."

Earlier, Marcus Cornelius Fronto (c. 100–170), the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, gave an anti-Christian oration c. 161, fragments which were incorporated within the century in the apology of Minucius Felix.  Among the charges against the Christians, Fronto rants

I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion,--a worthy and appropriate religion for such manners. Some say that they worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve...I purposely pass over many things, for those that I have mentioned are already too many; and that all these, or the greater part of them, are true, the obscurity of their vile religion declares. For why do they endeavour with such pains to conceal and to cloak whatever they worship, since honourable things always rejoice in publicity, while crimes are kept secret? Why have they no altars, no temples, no acknowledged images? Why do they never speak openly, never congregate freely, unless for the reason that what they adore and conceal is either worthy of punishment, or something to be ashamed of?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/octavius.html

Although murky, it does become clear, seeing the association of "ass-worship" (which the Christians, and Jews, denied) and the Cross (which the Christians did not deny), that Christian worship involved more than just ideas.

[ialmisry]

I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived.

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians (I Cor. 5:9), the Third Epistle to the Corinthians (II Cor. 2:4; II Cor. 7:8-9), the First Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3-4) and the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)
 

If they are a large part of the EO worship, and if EO is "The church", then certainly there should at least be some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon.

St. Innocent, Archbishop of the Aleutians and Metropolitan of America, wrote the Catechism "The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven," first in Aleut to evangelize this continent, and then translated into Russia, where it was very popular as a summary of Orthodoxy.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kingdomofheaven.aspx
It doesn't have any "writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon."  Should I conclude that St. Innocent, Russia America and 19th century Moscow didn't venerate icons?

The earlier cathechism for this continent, the English translation of Met. St. Peter Movila's "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gs0HAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Orthodox+Confession+of+the+Catholic+and+Apostolic+Eastern+Church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6Y3KUfWbMaK8yAHbqYHQBw&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=image&f=false
translated in colonial Virginia, reprinted a century later when Orhodoxy was becoming established throughout the continent
http://archive.org/details/cu31924029363094

The original (in Latin) had been translated into Greek and approved by the Synod of Iasi and Jerusalem for use by all Orthodox.  It remained the standard Orthodox Catechism for two centuries.  Out of the 72 topics it covers, only two have "some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon."  And that was only because of the presence of Calvinist iconoclasm in St. Peter's native Romania, his jurisdiction of the Polish Lithuania Commonwealth and in Constantinople itself.

There were no iconoclast heretics in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Church, hence no reason for "some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon," because the Orthodox knew that.

[lovetzatziki]

Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.

I disagree, we have a ton from that time.  Lot's of writings.  Lot's of history.  Lot's of artifacts.

You can disagree to your heart's content: unfortunately, it doesn't multiply the evidence.  We don't even have a "ton from that time" on what the Caesars were doing, let alone the Christians.

If I have pet beliefs, why are my beliefs written about in the scriptures, documented from early Christianity

They're not, as has been repeatedly shown to you, from your odd idea that we have to call Jesus "yeshua," mispronouncing the name in Aramaic, to the observance of the Kosher laws, questioning the Apostleship of St. Paul, etc.

whereas iconography is not.  I mean, let's really consider who has a pet belief.

Yes, let's.  The Church, which was around in the 1st century, or you, who has no connection to the 1st century or Palestine.

Not a hard conclusion to make.

Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.

No, simplistic.

For example, every Roman emperor had official portraits made, which were copied and distributed throughout the empire, to all levels of society).

out of the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of portraits made for each of the nearly one hundred emperors from Augustus to Constantine, only this one has survived.


Given that these state sponsored images did not survive, how do you expect those images whose possession was a capital offense should survive in profusion?

Then there is the question of those which survive being "restored," like this one in San Marco, going from something like this

to this in a Renaissance "restoration"

I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived.  If they are a large part of the EO worship, and if EO is "The church", then certainly there should at least be some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon.

I am curious just how many writings about the veneration of icons there are from 787 till today?

[LBK]

I am curious just how many writings about the veneration of icons there are from 787 till today?

Well, there's the hymnography for the Sunday of Orthodoxy, for starters .... 

[Mor Ephrem]

Although murky, it does become clear, seeing the association of "ass-worship" (which the Christians, and Jews, denied) and the Cross (which the Christians did not deny), that Christian worship involved more than just ideas.

Thanks for all that, it was helpful. 

Suppose that our God, then, be an asinine person, will you at all events deny that you possess the same characteristics with ourselves in that matter? (Not their heads only, but) entire asses, are, to be sure, objects of adoration to you, along with their tutelar Epona; and all herds, and cattle, and beasts you consecrate, and their stables into the bargain! This, perhaps, is your grievance against us, that, when surrounded by cattle-worshippers of every kind we are simply devoted to asses!....

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html

You've gotta love that...

[podkarpatska]

Although murky, it does become clear, seeing the association of "ass-worship" (which the Christians, and Jews, denied) and the Cross (which the Christians did not deny), that Christian worship involved more than just ideas.

Thanks for all that, it was helpful. 

Suppose that our God, then, be an asinine person, will you at all events deny that you possess the same characteristics with ourselves in that matter? (Not their heads only, but) entire asses, are, to be sure, objects of adoration to you, along with their tutelar Epona; and all herds, and cattle, and beasts you consecrate, and their stables into the bargain! This, perhaps, is your grievance against us, that, when surrounded by cattle-worshippers of every kind we are simply devoted to asses!....

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html

You've gotta love that...

Some might argue that this practice continues today...albeit on several different levels...

[yeshuaisiam]

Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.

You are an iconoclast.

I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity

Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.

No, you do not.

Why else do I ask for it so much?

To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)

The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....

Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.

And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.

so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.

Look, I'm too old for pot shots, really don't care.

If you believe this about Polycarp, you need to seriously look into the Greek letters and the mistranslations of them, including the Didache.

unlike you, I can read the original.  One reason why I stick to original Christianity.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

[Nephi]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Ba-dum-tish!

[SolEX01]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.   

[Justin Kissel]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:

asterisk

Whatchu talking about Willis?

[yeshuaisiam]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Ba-dum-tish!

Yep, and when documented, that New Testament contained NOTHING which I wrote about above.

[yeshuaisiam]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:

asterisk

Whatchu talking about Willis?

LOL
 

[TheTrisagion]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now? 

[Nephi]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Yep

Quoted in emphasis for future generations to see.

[yeshuaisiam]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.   

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.

[yeshuaisiam]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Yep

Quoted in emphasis for future generations to see.

Meh, they'll see you fragment quoted, thus showing you couldn't handle the truth.

[SolEX01]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.   

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.

We've resoundingly repeatedly repudiated your claims.

[yeshuaisiam]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now? 

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".

[yeshuaisiam]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.   

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.

We've resoundingly repeatedly repudiated your claims.

Absolutely not.  Most are loaded and full of pot shots.  These things did NOT exist in the early church.  Horse headed mockeries of Christians next to the crucified Christ do NOT count as icons.  They weren't even drawn by Christians.

How can you accept such silly answers?  Seriously, go back and read how people were passing that off as early Christian art.... When it was pagan art making fun of Christians.   Then they go on to show stuff from the late 3rd & 4th century....

Don't think that I was repudiated, when honestly, people just took pot shots that can't handle reality.

[TheTrisagion]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now? 

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".

They didn't say "Bible" either. Is that on the chopping block?

[LBK]

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

Heresy. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not "part of God", they ARE God.

[biro]

Is there a betting pool as to how long it'll take them to break out the ban hammer? I can't believe he's lasted this long. At least Flick Flack picks a new name and cartoon character every time he starts his silliness.

[Mor Ephrem]

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

While we ought to care about what the Jews believed in before the coming of Christ (e.g., it helps us understand the OT), after his coming he gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to lead her into all truth and to understand those things in the Scriptures which concerned himself.  Why should we care about Jewish errors rather than Jesus' truth?  And yet, you give Judaism, both pre- and post-Christian Judaisms, more credit than Jesus by rejecting the Trinity.  The word "Trinity", which you have a problem with, may have come later, but it was a word to describe what Christians saw as clearly taught by the NT and revealed, if not fully understood at the time, in the OT regarding who God is.  If you want to be a Jew, that's your choice and that's fine, but don't imagine for a moment you're a Christian.        

[SolEX01]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.    

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.

We've resoundingly repeatedly repudiated your claims.

Absolutely not.  Most are loaded and full of pot shots.  These things did NOT exist in the early church.  Horse headed mockeries of Christians next to the crucified Christ do NOT count as icons.  They weren't even drawn by Christians.

How can you accept such silly answers?  Seriously, go back and read how people were passing that off as early Christian art.... When it was pagan art making fun of Christians.   Then they go on to show stuff from the late 3rd & 4th century....

Don't think that I was repudiated, when honestly, people just took pot shots that can't handle reality.

Reject your reality?

[Mor Ephrem]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

It's almost silly at this point to try and dispute inaccuracies like those above when someone is so intent on believing Jewish fables rather than the God revealed in Christ, but why not?  

YiM, I'll grant you that there was no iconostasis, diskos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets, and trikirion and dikirion as we now have them.  But while you post a lot of protests against such things, I haven't yet come across anything you might have written about what the worship of original Christians was like during the period of original Christianity (presuming 1st-2nd century from your previous posts).  

If they didn't prostrate (never mind that examples are in Scripture), or use repetitive prayers (also in Scripture), etc., what did they do?  

[biro]

Of course he is. He always pretends he doesn't understand something, as a pretext to get mad about it and tell us all how we're wrong.

[TheTrisagion]

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

It's almost silly at this point to try and dispute inaccuracies like those above when someone is so intent on believing Jewish fables rather than the God revealed in Christ, but why not?  

YiM, I'll grant you that there was no iconostasis, diskos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets, and trikirion and dikirion as we now have them.  But while you post a lot of protests against such things, I haven't yet come across anything you might have written about what the worship of original Christians was like during the period of original Christianity (presuming 1st-2nd century from your previous posts).  

If they didn't prostrate (never mind that examples are in Scripture), or use repetitive prayers (also in Scripture), etc., what did they do?  

Don't be ridiculous.  Everyone knows that the early church busted out their guitars and sang some cool praise songs while the congregation held their hands up in the air and swayed to the music. St. Paul really could riff on that thing.  Good times, man, good times.

[Nephi]

Don't be ridiculous.  Everyone knows that the early church busted out their guitars and sang some cool praise songs while the congregation held their hands up in the air and swayed to the music. St. Paul really could riff on that thing.  Good times, man, good times.

Now you're being ridiculous. Everyone knows the Apostles actually wrote the New Testament in Pennsylvania Dutch, wore blue suspender pants with button shirts and straw hats, and absolutely did not use guitars and sing cool praise songs.

[mike]

Actually, prostrations are mentioned as a way of prayer  in the NT.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?