Author Topic: How are icons different than the golden calf?  (Read 12772 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,839
  • Excelsior
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #225 on: July 15, 2014, 09:57:08 PM »
The issue here is more one of 'I will set the bar to something I know they can't prove, thus feel vindicated when they can't prove it per my standards'

Yep. It's just one long parade of 'moving the goalposts.'
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #226 on: July 15, 2014, 09:58:22 PM »
The freedom that the Amish enjoy to be pacifist, at least in the United States, comes from the fact that they are protected by the military, which the rest of us have to work and pay for. ...

Hardly. Wherever they have lived, they have never defended themselves, since 1520s. In point of fact, they were sometimes driven into warzones (in the Palatinate during the Thirty Years', in Virginia during the American Civil) and died in droves under cannon fire, and they were often moved into wartorn regions no one else could farm. If anything, it could be argued that "American freedom" derives from them, since the Anabaptist commitment to die rather than obey the State sent shockwaves throughout Europe and in some cases (Holland, Poland, some American colonies) was even the direct driver of decisions to allow freedom of religion.

That's funny. Could have sworn the Amish don't go into military service, but my Dad, who is Catholic, did.

Guess Dad faked all those pictures he has from back then.

::whoosh::

There's more than one way to contest for freedom. I don't expect you to have been in possession of that rather obscure fact, and I don't insist the non-resistant way is the right way or the effectual way. But now you know.

I did know that, and I don't agree with your claim. We had two wars with the British for a reason. We fought the Nazis and won for a reason. The day you hear about lots of Amish joining the Army, let me know. Until then, I'll stick with my Dad.

As Yesh pointed out you can choose between Christ and your father. Not sure global domination in the name of the American Way made into my bible and it has Jesus words in red.

Peter did have a sword, as punch will point out, in the end everyone is their own Pope.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,523
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #227 on: July 15, 2014, 09:59:59 PM »
I'm still waiting to hear Yesh talk about his 2 'Gods' and his quadist faith....

He said he worshiped: "God of the Father" - meaning that there's a God, a Father ('God?'), a Son and a Holy Spirit - 4 elements, rather than 3.

Clarify, (don't know the thread or if type o)

I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  They are God and one.

For clarification - look at Reply #71 - was it a typo or was it deliberate?

Who's the extra entity?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,850
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #228 on: July 15, 2014, 10:00:14 PM »
Jesus kept the Sabbath as did the apostles.  

Yes.

Quote
Constantine officially changed it.

No.  I've referred you several times to a scholarly work which discusses this in detail.   

Quote
Moses is not more important than Jesus, but recorded God's word in the Torah.  The Torah is everlasting.

What does this mean?  
 
Quote
Jesus came not to abolish the law, but fulfilled it.  Remember the story of the adulterous woman?  Jesus did not abolish the law, in fact he gave permission to stone her - "who is without sin cast the first stone".  (Fulfilled)

Where did the Law stipulate that the stoning had to be conducted by sinless people?  Or else, in what sense is this a fulfillment of the true intention of the Law which would maintain both letter and spirit?  

Quote
The feasts Moses dictated from the word of God were also everlasting.  Your own St. Polycarp kept passover.

What does "everlasting" mean in this context?  What Passover did St Polycarp keep?  

And was St Polycarp the only Christian ever between St Paul and St Constantine?  Sure you have other examples of "our own" saints to corroborate your claims.    

Quote
Constantine was a sun worshipper.  He kept the sun God "sol-invictus" on his coins after his supposed conversion.   After Nicea, he murdered hundreds of thousands of people for imperialism.   Also his arch depicts Mithra.   He was a Roman Polytheist.   If I could describe my opinion after hours of worship, stick Christianity and Mithraism in a blender and you get Constantine's church.

Oh?  Legitimate proof, please.

Quote
St. Paul referred to himself in a paternal sense of the use of Father using birth.  Far different than "Holy Father".  

What does this mean?

Quote
This is also once again an avoidance of calling your bishop "Master" which is against God's command. (I seriously do not comprehend how you people simply can't understand this)

Well, I sympathise.  I can't understand how you abandoned the Eucharist because of some incident involving a man in tribal costume and an antimension.  You might as well reject Christ for being the son of an adulterer-murderer, an idolater, etc.  
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,839
  • Excelsior
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #229 on: July 15, 2014, 10:00:40 PM »
So, there are cases in which someone can say father. Ha ha, Yesh just disproved his own point.

Also, St. Constantine was baptized a Christian before his death. A fact Yesh completely ignores, because it doesn't fit the agenda.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #230 on: July 15, 2014, 10:01:37 PM »
Who's tired of seeing this thread? (0-0)/)

I'm tired of seeing Orthodoxy disparaged on a public Orthodox forum.

Worse than Odox acting disparagingly in a public forum?

Do we have an official internet Confessor yet?


Are you up for the job?
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #231 on: July 15, 2014, 10:02:22 PM »
The Jesus Prayer is from the Bible. "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me." Also there's the prayer of the Publican, who went away justified, instead of the Pharisee.

We worship on Sunday because that's the day of the Resurrection. I guess Moses is more important to you than Jesus.

St. Paul referred to himself as a spiritual father.

We do not celebrate pagan anything.

The word pagan means polytheist, which we are not. Don't throw around words of which you don't know the meaning.

The fact that you smear St. Constantine but accept St. Paul proves that you believe in neither baptism, nor repentance, nor forgiveness. See, Paul, when he was Saul, killed Christians too. But he repented and was forgiven. So did Constantine, which is why we call him a saint too.

Yesh, you really have made your own Frankenstein church out of body parts. The trouble is, yours exists nowhere outside of you.

So twisted.
yes, your church of Frankenstein is.
Jesus kept the Sabbath as did the apostles.
 
He was executed for breaking it.
Constantine officially changed it.
 
your ignorance of history is showing: St. Constantine the Emperor did no such thing. He had no authority to do so.  He merely bowed to the Church's teaching, and observed Sunday as the Apostles did in the Bible.

Moses is not more important than Jesus, but recorded God's word in the Torah.  The Torah is everlasting.  Jesus came not to abolish the law, but fulfilled it.  Remember the story of the adulterous woman?  Jesus did not abolish the law, in fact he gave permission to stone her - "who is without sin cast the first stone".  (Fulfilled)

The feasts Moses dictated from the word of God were also everlasting.  Your own St. Polycarp kept passover.
Your ignorance of history, and Greek, is showing. St. Polycarp kept Pascha, like the rest of the Church.

Constantine was a sun worshipper.  He kept the sun God "sol-invictus" on his coins after his supposed conversion.   After Nicea, he murdered hundreds of thousands of people for imperialism.   Also his arch depicts Mithra.   He was a Roman Polytheist.   If I could describe my opinion after hours of worship, stick Christianity and Mithraism in a blender and you get Constantine's church.
you are displaying your general ignorance here, on top of your ignorance of history.
St. Paul referred to himself in a paternal sense of the use of Father using birth.  Far different than "Holy Father".  This is also once again an avoidance of calling your bishop "Master" which is against God's command. (I seriously do not comprehend how you people simply can't understand this)
You do not comprehend far more.  As for the heretical gibberish, we understand it, and hence we reject it.
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

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,184
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #232 on: July 15, 2014, 10:02:57 PM »
The issue here is more one of 'I will set the bar to something I know they can't prove, thus feel vindicated when they can't prove it per my standards'

The reason for all this is not concern for our souls, but rather for his.

If we are 'wrong' he does not have to feel uncertainty about his soul and what comes after death.
Fear is a terrible thing.

It's a neurosis, not an uncommon one, and I wish it were possible to heal and help.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,879
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #233 on: July 15, 2014, 10:06:52 PM »
Who's tired of seeing this thread? (0-0)/)

I'm tired of seeing Orthodoxy disparaged on a public Orthodox forum.

Worse than Odox acting disparagingly in a public forum?

Do we have an official internet Confessor yet?


Are you up for the job?
+1
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,850
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #234 on: July 15, 2014, 10:08:18 PM »
Jesus kept the Sabbath as did the apostles.  

Yes.

Jesus kept the Sabbath as did the apostles.
 
He was executed for breaking it.

Very nice.  You are right.
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #235 on: July 15, 2014, 10:08:33 PM »
Huh? The saints are pagan?

Why isn't he banned already? Alfred Persson is.

No my old self until my recent revelation believed some of the saints to be pagan.   But don't worry, I've conceded, and I'll be happy to venerate his all holiness St. Constantine the great now.

Welcome home, brother.

Thank you, I'll be confessing my heresies to my Holy spiritual father soon (as my witness).   I'll seek my Father's guidance in these matters.  I realize I was too stupid to read God's word.
Evidently.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #236 on: July 15, 2014, 10:16:40 PM »
Yesh, it should be obvious after many years of your futile attempts to convince us that you are just NOT going to persuade us to embrace your iconoclasm. So why do you keep coming back to hit us yet again with the same old hackneyed arguments? Didn't Jesus also say that if one town won't receive you, that you are to leave the town, shaking the dust off your feet as you depart? Why do you not obey that commandment of our Lord?

You are right.  Sorry I was only concerned for your souls as I believe you have been deceived by an ancient pagan blended quasi Christian church which was the product of Nicea.

You do realize that Christian use of icons goes waaaaaaaay back before Nicea II?

Yes.

I've challenged the forum many times to show icons and/or liturgical use of icons pre 150AD.  Also, show me ANY text that speaks of icons pre 200A.D.   Icons are used very much in the church, ironically there are no icons anybody can find pre-150, and no texts pre 200 (and perhaps later).

200 years ago was 1814.  Think of how long 200ad was from the time of Christ.  Yet the church did not use icons nor write about them for a long time thereafter.
Show us any New Testament Texts pre 150 AD.  Show us Churches pre 150 AD.  

As someone pegged you correctly-"only the absence of evidence is evidence."

The earliest Churches we have have icons in them, and the earliest New Testaments we have were written by Iconodules.

Think of how long 2014ad is from the time of Christ. Yet you expect us to believe your ideas jumbled in the 21st century on the 1st century.

Prove it.

Show me a writing where they said they bowed to frescos, which are dated later anyway.
You first show me a New Testament pre 150ad, and explain how you can lay claim to it.

My proof is obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos#The_house_church
As for back as we have physical evidence of Christianity, we find icons.

The years on those were post 150.
If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

"And when they came into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him" Mat. 2:11

The date that Madonna is within the century after 150.
My issue is the latter.  I believe at its core the Eastern Orthodox theology 'is' correct, but has been very hijacked.   Sometimes hijacked into the point of direct blasphemy of God.  My questions have never been answered, merely often addressed in a rude manner.
Your questions have been answered many times over.  That you don't want to recognize that is what you mistake for "a rude manner."
Actually no they have not.  People make excuses, not address the core issues.
They have been addressed, documented and disposed of, many times over.

1) Is an icon - An image in the likeness of anything in heaven or on Earth?    We were commanded NOT to make an image in the likeness of anything in heaven or on Earth.   People also bow down to them (or the likeness in representation) which we were commanded not to do.  I believe this is a hijack
Who cares what you believe?

The Church believes what Christ taught "Who has seen Me has seen the Father." And what the Apostles taught:
Actually the church DOES NOT believe what Christ taught nor God.
 
Sorry, J. Smith Jr., but I'm going to stick with those who have been taught by Christ (Who, btw, is God), and who in turn taught others, and entrusted the teaching down through the generations from Christ until today.  You can go peddle you other gospel of your own modern making elsewhere.

They taught "do not make any image in the likeness of anything in heaven or on Earth".  Guess what, your church is FULL of images in the likeness of things in heaven and Earth.  How can you not plainly see this?  It's FULL of them.
you obviously haven't read your Bible.  By God's command, the Tabernacle were FULL of images of the likeness of things in heaven and Earth, "made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen" (Acts 7:44).  Moses could plainly see that.  Guess what, when Solomon build the Temple, it too was FULL of images. How can you not plainly see this? And your anabaptist friends, like you, long (well, a few centuries. They haven't been around all that long), used to makes all sorts of allegations that the Church walls were bare, like the synagogue, untill Constantine.  But then the archaelogist's spade uncovered ancient synagogues built long before Constantine, Churches built during the persecutions, and the catacombs were uncovered.  And all three groups were FULL of images.


then after St. Constantine
and today

How can you not plainly see this?
Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art
 edited by Jeffrey Spie
http://books.google.com/books?id=BVzVUQoXu_QC&pg=PA174&dq=%22On+the+right+side,+the+paralytic+healed+by+Jesus%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOfFU5KjDIeSyASm7YLgCA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22On%20the%20right%20side%2C%20the%20paralytic%20healed%20by%20Jesus%22&f=false
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 10:48:06 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #237 on: July 15, 2014, 10:29:59 PM »
I'm ready to go to the WCC and make up with the Muslims and Tribals.  

Are you hurting?

No seriously to rejoin the church, I may as well go let the tribals in loin cloths pick up the antimens as I witnessed.  Nothing wrong with that.   If the Holy Patriarchs let it happen, it must be okay.

I know you probably think my question is rhetorical or meant to make fun of you, but it is not.  I haven't read all previous threads in part, let alone thoroughly, but I've seen enough references to something you witnessed at a WCC event leading you away from Orthodoxy (and you refer to it above)...I'm wondering if it traumatised you so much that your anti-Orthodoxy is less out of conviction and more out of pain.  

The pain brings conviction.  As a former staunch EASTERN ORTHODOX Christian, my entire world was Eastern Orthodox.  The act of ecumenism brought realization that many bishops are capable of incepting and bringing things into the church.  If they could allow side by side worship with pagans and heretics, violating their own canons, what else could they have done through history.  

It was a can of worms and still is.  

If I was still Eastern Orthodox today, and went to a let's say, Muslim church, and prayed along side them, I would be up for excommunication.

The bishops allow for ecumenism under the pretense of dialog.  

There is a video on youtube (I'll spare not to link it again), which is made by HOTCA, detailing some of the practices of the WCC.

The bishops were more interested in the WCC unity than unity with various synods within the church.   It's tragic.

I always believed the bishops to be the "guards" of the church in ways.  To protect her from heresies.  Yet they directly sanctioned the heresy itself - as it has been called by many EO.  These EO are not "non-world" or "cast aways".   Forget that ROCOR has been in and out of WCC.... Doesn't matter to world Orthodoxy.  ROCOR was not as important as "dialog" with Muslims or Hindus.

It directly brought into question for me the entirety of the church and what the bishops have brought in through history.

Mor, you got it, absolutely I hurt.  The pain brought in much research.  Today I see strands of truth in the church, but my convictions are real.  It stinks too, because of man made inceptions and bishopric implementations, I'm out on the Eucharist.  I'm convinced the iconoclasts were correct - and that their intent was true and pure.  Scripturally it matches to destroy idols....   But here's the deal (putting icons aside as idols).  Icons are NOT necessary for worship (all EO here would agree).  But it would be necessary for me to venerate icons to receive the Eucharist, as I would have to be in the church fully (which would require me to venerate them).   A non-needed man made inception would keep me from the body & blood of Christ? This inception even for centuries under attack (deeply rooted attack) by its own church & bishops would keep one from the Eucharist?  Obviously the conviction on icons is not new.

I know my arguments tend to tick people off more than the norm, and I present them harshly, so yes, you probably see the pain - and there is pain.

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches.

The Messianic Jew stuff is incredibly amazing.  While oddly it sort of fits in with Orthodox Theology (I know all or none, but bear with), it mends the Old and New Testament in ways I've never imagined.   But the caveat is Constantine. Rooting back to St. Polycarp, things are looking good.  It taught me there is a problem with the bible and EO.  The scriptures must work together.  The entirety of the scriptures has to be complete, true, and ongoing - fulfilled with Christ.

If we cast off YHWH and his everlasting feasts along with the 4th commandment, we are in huge trouble.  If we adopt pagan feasts, detest YHWH's feasts (as Jew feasts), then we deny the Father's everlasting feasts.

Some can accuse me of cherry picking my faith, but truly I'm just analyzing who seems to be following the scriptures and commands of God the best.... I analyze why things change, and who changed them. - Why?

Because in general, I do not trust bishops or theologians.

But you are absolutely right about there being pain, and thank your for seeing it.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #238 on: July 15, 2014, 10:37:59 PM »
Jesus kept the Sabbath as did the apostles.  

Yes.

Jesus kept the Sabbath as did the apostles.
 
He was executed for breaking it.

Very nice.  You are right.

If anything of this manner executed for breaking radical oral tradition formulated around the Sabbath.

But the claim was he was making himself a king.

But by prophecy, we needed the blood of the lamb to atone us.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline TheMathematician

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,005
  • Formerly known as Montalo
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ACROD
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #239 on: July 15, 2014, 10:44:09 PM »
Yesh. im going to save space by not quoting your post, but I want to thank you for writing that all out. I know it's a real issue for you, and at least it shows us where you are coming from, even though we reject the maority of what you are arguing,

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,879
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #240 on: July 15, 2014, 10:44:32 PM »
I'm ready to go to the WCC and make up with the Muslims and Tribals.  

Are you hurting?

No seriously to rejoin the church, I may as well go let the tribals in loin cloths pick up the antimens as I witnessed.  Nothing wrong with that.   If the Holy Patriarchs let it happen, it must be okay.

I know you probably think my question is rhetorical or meant to make fun of you, but it is not.  I haven't read all previous threads in part, let alone thoroughly, but I've seen enough references to something you witnessed at a WCC event leading you away from Orthodoxy (and you refer to it above)...I'm wondering if it traumatised you so much that your anti-Orthodoxy is less out of conviction and more out of pain.  

The pain brings conviction.  As a former staunch EASTERN ORTHODOX Christian, my entire world was Eastern Orthodox.  The act of ecumenism brought realization that many bishops are capable of incepting and bringing things into the church.  If they could allow side by side worship with pagans and heretics, violating their own canons, what else could they have done through history.  

It was a can of worms and still is.  

If I was still Eastern Orthodox today, and went to a let's say, Muslim church, and prayed along side them, I would be up for excommunication.

The bishops allow for ecumenism under the pretense of dialog.  

There is a video on youtube (I'll spare not to link it again), which is made by HOTCA, detailing some of the practices of the WCC.

The bishops were more interested in the WCC unity than unity with various synods within the church.   It's tragic.

I always believed the bishops to be the "guards" of the church in ways.  To protect her from heresies.  Yet they directly sanctioned the heresy itself - as it has been called by many EO.  These EO are not "non-world" or "cast aways".   Forget that ROCOR has been in and out of WCC.... Doesn't matter to world Orthodoxy.  ROCOR was not as important as "dialog" with Muslims or Hindus.

It directly brought into question for me the entirety of the church and what the bishops have brought in through history.

Mor, you got it, absolutely I hurt.  The pain brought in much research.  Today I see strands of truth in the church, but my convictions are real.  It stinks too, because of man made inceptions and bishopric implementations, I'm out on the Eucharist.  I'm convinced the iconoclasts were correct - and that their intent was true and pure.  Scripturally it matches to destroy idols....   But here's the deal (putting icons aside as idols).  Icons are NOT necessary for worship (all EO here would agree).  But it would be necessary for me to venerate icons to receive the Eucharist, as I would have to be in the church fully (which would require me to venerate them).   A non-needed man made inception would keep me from the body & blood of Christ? This inception even for centuries under attack (deeply rooted attack) by its own church & bishops would keep one from the Eucharist?  Obviously the conviction on icons is not new.

I know my arguments tend to tick people off more than the norm, and I present them harshly, so yes, you probably see the pain - and there is pain.

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches.

The Messianic Jew stuff is incredibly amazing.  While oddly it sort of fits in with Orthodox Theology (I know all or none, but bear with), it mends the Old and New Testament in ways I've never imagined.   But the caveat is Constantine. Rooting back to St. Polycarp, things are looking good.  It taught me there is a problem with the bible and EO.  The scriptures must work together.  The entirety of the scriptures has to be complete, true, and ongoing - fulfilled with Christ.

If we cast off YHWH and his everlasting feasts along with the 4th commandment, we are in huge trouble.  If we adopt pagan feasts, detest YHWH's feasts (as Jew feasts), then we deny the Father's everlasting feasts.

Some can accuse me of cherry picking my faith, but truly I'm just analyzing who seems to be following the scriptures and commands of God the best.... I analyze why things change, and who changed them. - Why?

Because in general, I do not trust bishops or theologians.

But you are absolutely right about there being pain, and thank your for seeing it.

Yesh, if I added to the pain, I apologize.  I hope you realize that perhaps we will never agree, but we are always willing to have peaceful discussions.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,347
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #241 on: July 15, 2014, 10:52:48 PM »
Yesh, the primary thing that puzzles me is that you can't see that you've made yourself the final arbiter of what is true. I know you think you're placing the Scriptures in that position, but Sola Scriptura is impossible. It cannot be done. Even if you think you're only following the Scriptures, you aren't.

And these Scriptures you hold so rightfully dear say that it is the Church that is the "pillar and ground" of truth. That being true, where do you say this Church is? Which communion is it? If that is where we find the truth, it simply has to be out there somewhere. How do we find it?

You've mocked Orthodoxy and virtually every other communion that claims to be this one, true Church but, as someone already pointed out, that means you're only left with yourself. An island.

I'd honestly and genuinely love for you address this.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,184
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #242 on: July 15, 2014, 11:00:27 PM »
...

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches. ...

...

This really struck me. Not because I involuntarily said "Lord, have mercy" on your wife. ;) But because what you are describing is something all Swiss-Germans had and all Europeans and at one time almost all peoples. What I am going to say next I can hardly explain. Forgive me if it is inarticulate. ... These community ties and other attributes that fill you with wonder existed side-by-side with the Church for a thousand and more years--and were nourished by her. Wherever the Church has managed to remain in flourishing condition, there too you will find hearty remnants of a laos with such attributes. I urge you to grasp the vision of this you've been given, in the person of your wife, even in our modern Western darkness, and to allow trust to grow in you toward the Father who loves mankind and toward the Church.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #243 on: July 15, 2014, 11:03:11 PM »
Yesh, it should be obvious after many years of your futile attempts to convince us that you are just NOT going to persuade us to embrace your iconoclasm. So why do you keep coming back to hit us yet again with the same old hackneyed arguments? Didn't Jesus also say that if one town won't receive you, that you are to leave the town, shaking the dust off your feet as you depart? Why do you not obey that commandment of our Lord?

You are right.  Sorry I was only concerned for your souls as I believe you have been deceived by an ancient pagan blended quasi Christian church which was the product of Nicea.

You do realize that Christian use of icons goes waaaaaaaay back before Nicea II?

Yes.

I've challenged the forum many times to show icons and/or liturgical use of icons pre 150AD.  Also, show me ANY text that speaks of icons pre 200A.D.   Icons are used very much in the church, ironically there are no icons anybody can find pre-150, and no texts pre 200 (and perhaps later).

200 years ago was 1814.  Think of how long 200ad was from the time of Christ.  Yet the church did not use icons nor write about them for a long time thereafter.
Show us any New Testament Texts pre 150 AD.  Show us Churches pre 150 AD.  

As someone pegged you correctly-"only the absence of evidence is evidence."

The earliest Churches we have have icons in them, and the earliest New Testaments we have were written by Iconodules.

Think of how long 2014ad is from the time of Christ. Yet you expect us to believe your ideas jumbled in the 21st century on the 1st century.

Prove it.

Show me a writing where they said they bowed to frescos, which are dated later anyway.
You first show me a New Testament pre 150ad, and explain how you can lay claim to it.

My proof is obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos#The_house_church
As for back as we have physical evidence of Christianity, we find icons.

The years on those were post 150.
If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

"And when they came into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him" Mat. 2:11

The date that Madonna is within the century after 150.
My issue is the latter.  I believe at its core the Eastern Orthodox theology 'is' correct, but has been very hijacked.   Sometimes hijacked into the point of direct blasphemy of God.  My questions have never been answered, merely often addressed in a rude manner.
Your questions have been answered many times over.  That you don't want to recognize that is what you mistake for "a rude manner."
Actually no they have not.  People make excuses, not address the core issues.
They have been addressed, documented and disposed of, many times over.

1) Is an icon - An image in the likeness of anything in heaven or on Earth?    We were commanded NOT to make an image in the likeness of anything in heaven or on Earth.   People also bow down to them (or the likeness in representation) which we were commanded not to do.  I believe this is a hijack
Who cares what you believe?

The Church believes what Christ taught "Who has seen Me has seen the Father." And what the Apostles taught:
Actually the church DOES NOT believe what Christ taught nor God.
 
Sorry, J. Smith Jr., but I'm going to stick with those who have been taught by Christ (Who, btw, is God), and who in turn taught others, and entrusted the teaching down through the generations from Christ until today.  You can go peddle you other gospel of your own modern making elsewhere.

They taught "do not make any image in the likeness of anything in heaven or on Earth".  Guess what, your church is FULL of images in the likeness of things in heaven and Earth.  How can you not plainly see this?  It's FULL of them.
you obviously haven't read your Bible.  By God's command, the Tabernacle were FULL of images of the likeness of things in heaven and Earth, "made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen" (Acts 7:44).  Moses could plainly see that.  Guess what, when Solomon build the Temple, it too was FULL of images. How can you not plainly see this? And your anabaptist friends, like you, long (well, a few centuries. They haven't been around all that long), used to makes all sorts of allegations that the Church walls were bare, like the synagogue, untill Constantine.  But then the archaelogist's spade uncovered ancient synagogues built long before Constantine, Churches built during the persecutions, and the catacombs were uncovered.  And all three groups were FULL of images.


then after St. Constantine
and today

How can you not plainly see this?

So your example contains images from the Dura-Europos church which was a pagan temple of Mithra worship until 232.

Temple of Mithra

Wow, sun disk halos on the left "icon".

These examples are as ridiculous as saying:

"Look out it's St. George!" (or Mithra)

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #244 on: July 15, 2014, 11:07:15 PM »
The Church at Dura-Europos was a house church...
"Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity."

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,486
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #245 on: July 15, 2014, 11:09:58 PM »
The Church at Dura-Europos was a house church...

It's not the first time he's been told that ....
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #246 on: July 15, 2014, 11:10:24 PM »

So your example contains images from the Dura-Europos church which was a pagan temple of Mithra worship until 232.

Temple of Mithra

Wow, sun disk halos on the left "icon".

These examples are as ridiculous as saying:

"Look out it's St. George!" (or Mithra)



Those images aren't even from Dura-Europos. Never mind that St. George was martyred for refusing to worship pagan Gods...
"Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity."

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #247 on: July 15, 2014, 11:10:53 PM »
Yesh, the primary thing that puzzles me is that you can't see that you've made yourself the final arbiter of what is true. I know you think you're placing the Scriptures in that position, but Sola Scriptura is impossible. It cannot be done. Even if you think you're only following the Scriptures, you aren't.

And these Scriptures you hold so rightfully dear say that it is the Church that is the "pillar and ground" of truth. That being true, where do you say this Church is? Which communion is it? If that is where we find the truth, it simply has to be out there somewhere. How do we find it?

You've mocked Orthodoxy and virtually every other communion that claims to be this one, true Church but, as someone already pointed out, that means you're only left with yourself. An island.

I'd honestly and genuinely love for you address this.

Here's the deal, I believe what God says is true.  You are right, I have to make decisions based on how I view God from his word.  I won't allow bishops who I have lost trust in to decide that for me.  

You are also right, it does make me an island of sorts, abandoned, and floating about somewhere.  It is a tough position to be in.  If the narrow path in which we carry our cross on is the Eastern Orthodox church, then I pray God forgives me.  If the narrow path that we walk down is like the one of Jesus, where he was rejected by the church, world, and mocked in many languages, then I pray I am on the right track.

It may be a lonely track, based on personal convictions of his word.  It may not bind up in a creed, which boxes in the infinite God.... Because he just can't be a quinity if he wants to be.

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #248 on: July 15, 2014, 11:13:18 PM »
The Church at Dura-Europos was a house church...

It's not the first time he's been told that ....

It was.. nevermind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos#The_house_church

He's posting images of similarity to icons from a church that was a mithraeum.  I was asking for pre 150AD icons, or more importantly writings of icon usage in worship.

The images I posted show "similarity" as his examples, but doesn't mean the icons are that.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 11:13:48 PM by yeshuaisiam »
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #249 on: July 15, 2014, 11:15:39 PM »
Yesh, the primary thing that puzzles me is that you can't see that you've made yourself the final arbiter of what is true. I know you think you're placing the Scriptures in that position, but Sola Scriptura is impossible. It cannot be done. Even if you think you're only following the Scriptures, you aren't.

And these Scriptures you hold so rightfully dear say that it is the Church that is the "pillar and ground" of truth. That being true, where do you say this Church is? Which communion is it? If that is where we find the truth, it simply has to be out there somewhere. How do we find it?

You've mocked Orthodoxy and virtually every other communion that claims to be this one, true Church but, as someone already pointed out, that means you're only left with yourself. An island.

I'd honestly and genuinely love for you address this.

Here's the deal, I believe what God says is true.  You are right, I have to make decisions based on how I view God from his word.  I won't allow bishops who I have lost trust in to decide that for me.  

You are also right, it does make me an island of sorts, abandoned, and floating about somewhere.  It is a tough position to be in.  If the narrow path in which we carry our cross on is the Eastern Orthodox church, then I pray God forgives me.  If the narrow path that we walk down is like the one of Jesus, where he was rejected by the church, world, and mocked in many languages, then I pray I am on the right track.

It may be a lonely track, based on personal convictions of his word.  It may not bind up in a creed, which boxes in the infinite God.... Because he just can't be a quinity if he wants to be.


But by whose authority do you chart your own path?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Quote
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
"Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity."

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,202
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #250 on: July 15, 2014, 11:20:02 PM »
The Church at Dura-Europos was a house church...

It's not the first time he's been told that ....

It was.. nevermind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos#The_house_church

He's posting images of similarity to icons from a church that was a mithraeum.  I was asking for pre 150AD icons, or more importantly writings of icon usage in worship.

The images I posted show "similarity" as his examples, but doesn't mean the icons are that.

Even before any "hard evidence" of icons, there are multiple examples of Christians reinterpreting pagan symbols for their own use.
"Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity."

Offline TheMathematician

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,005
  • Formerly known as Montalo
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ACROD
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #251 on: July 15, 2014, 11:27:13 PM »
this post needs serious revisions so ignore what was here for now
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 11:29:35 PM by TheMathematician »

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #252 on: July 15, 2014, 11:41:13 PM »
...

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches. ...

...

This really struck me. Not because I involuntarily said "Lord, have mercy" on your wife. ;) But because what you are describing is something all Swiss-Germans had and all Europeans and at one time almost all peoples. What I am going to say next I can hardly explain. Forgive me if it is inarticulate. ... These community ties and other attributes that fill you with wonder existed side-by-side with the Church for a thousand and more years--and were nourished by her. Wherever the Church has managed to remain in flourishing condition, there too you will find hearty remnants of a laos with such attributes. I urge you to grasp the vision of this you've been given, in the person of your wife, even in our modern Western darkness, and to allow trust to grow in you toward the Father who loves mankind and toward the Church.

My friend, I have a book filled where the church (RC) burned parents alive in front of their children, children in front of their parents....   It's thicker than all get up.  I'd suggest it for any Christian.  It's called Martyr's Mirror.  It's online.
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/

It details the torture of Christians back to Christ, including many the EO claim as saints.   While some elements of the church was good for families without doubt, we can't attribute all family virtues to the church itself.

When we go to my wife's church, we have a smaller family.  There are many with 9, 10, 12, and one family with 14 children.  They run orphanages and adopt children from all over.   While far removed from the "church" as you know it.   Their divorce rate is nil, like 2% or less. There is fruit here.   Family values are nourished like crazy and encouraged.

Look, I have to be fair, EO - CAN be that way, but it is not common - especially in America.  The church here is embedded in a wordly manner, and the parishoners work within the world and often accept worldly things.  (common not absolute).  It corrupts.   Just look at the forum for examples, all this birth control talk, when children are a heritage to the Lord.    Mennonites are not always rich, but the values based in simplicity leads to a modest lifestyle where the good stewardship of finances allows for large families.  It sounds like a breeding factory to many, because it is misunderstood.  

The EO church CAN nourish this, but most often does not.  I fully understand why, as it doesn't often "go there" to preach and "dictate" parts of the family life.  Is this good?  Sure it can be.  Do Mennonites seem "overbearing", yes they can.   But at the end of the day, a typical Mennonite family ends with a bible reading in a plain open room with a wife and many children around.

Yes, in this manner the EO church frustrates me, and I agree it can nourish, hasn't always, but unfortunately the tight bond of most EO communities is gone.

Example, we went to go visit my sister in Connecticut.  We were told by a Mennonite to stop off in Kentucky at their Sister's house for the night.  It left me stumped.   So we drove many hours that day.  We pulled down some long farm roads.  We get to a house. (by the way they were conservative and didn't have phones).   So we knock on the door.   A woman opens the door and says - "Can I help you?"   We said "Hi, your sister told us to come by here as we are traveling from Texas to Connecticut".   She opens up her arms and says loudly "WELCOME!"  She smiled, welcomed our family in.  She gave us supper, put us up for the night, and we helped chore in the morning (and I learned about stitching horse tack / super thick leather).     She next to begged for us to stop by on the way back, which we did... Again welcomed, no notice.  

The community is awesome with those folks.  And while the Eastern Orthodox church I agree CAN and HAS nourished those types of relationships, it unfortunately seems somewhat less that way from my experience.  I have been welcomed by Monasteries and Priests though, so I must be fair.  The hospitality was nice.  "family monastics" is the best way I can describe many of them - which arguably one could claim came from the church.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #253 on: July 15, 2014, 11:49:38 PM »
The issue here is more one of 'I will set the bar to something I know they can't prove, thus feel vindicated when they can't prove it per my standards'

The reason for all this is not concern for our souls, but rather for his.

If we are 'wrong' he does not have to feel uncertainty about his soul and what comes after death.
Fear is a terrible thing.

I'll admit there is truth to your post.  The trust for bishops & theologians (mostly) I have unlearned.  Thus the church must prove itself to me (sic) from my own abilities to comprehend it.  I know it does not owe me that.  Neither does the forum. 

But the correction I must make is when you use the word "they", because I seek answers in many EO books and writings.

I don't hold anybody's words here as necessarily authority, but there is a lot of interesting info on Orthodoxy here.  Believe when I say, there are many elements of the church I completely agree with.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,486
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #254 on: July 15, 2014, 11:53:39 PM »
Quote
I'll admit there is truth to your post.  The trust for bishops & theologians (mostly) I have unlearned.  Thus the church must prove itself to me (sic) from my own abilities to comprehend it.  I know it does not owe me that.  Neither does the forum.


Time and again, over many threads and countless posts, folks here have tried to show you the error of your ways regarding icons, drawing from all areas of Orthodox tradition. Yet you persist in your error, and keep starting threads on the same subject. You persist in using yourself as the ultimate authority on this matter.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #255 on: July 15, 2014, 11:58:35 PM »
So your example contains images from the Dura-Europos church which was a pagan temple of Mithra worship until 232.
Your ignorance of archaeology is sinking your ignorance of history.

The Mithraeum is quite a ways from the Church, with the Synagogue (which also has icons) inbetween, right next to the Church.
Temple of Mithra

Wow, sun disk halos on the left "icon".
And?
These examples are as ridiculous as saying:
that you know what you are talking about.
"Look out it's St. George!" (or Mithra)


that ignorance of art history is weighing your ignorance of art, history and archaeology down even further.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 12:02:42 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,184
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #256 on: July 16, 2014, 12:12:12 AM »
...

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches. ...

...

This really struck me. Not because I involuntarily said "Lord, have mercy" on your wife. ;) But because what you are describing is something all Swiss-Germans had and all Europeans and at one time almost all peoples. What I am going to say next I can hardly explain. Forgive me if it is inarticulate. ... These community ties and other attributes that fill you with wonder existed side-by-side with the Church for a thousand and more years--and were nourished by her. Wherever the Church has managed to remain in flourishing condition, there too you will find hearty remnants of a laos with such attributes. I urge you to grasp the vision of this you've been given, in the person of your wife, even in our modern Western darkness, and to allow trust to grow in you toward the Father who loves mankind and toward the Church.

My friend, I have a book filled where the church (RC) burned parents alive in front of their children, children in front of their parents....   It's thicker than all get up.  I'd suggest it for any Christian.  It's called Martyr's Mirror.  It's online.
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/

It details the torture of Christians back to Christ, including many the EO claim as saints.   While some elements of the church was good for families without doubt, we can't attribute all family virtues to the church itself.

When we go to my wife's church, we have a smaller family.  There are many with 9, 10, 12, and one family with 14 children.  They run orphanages and adopt children from all over.   While far removed from the "church" as you know it.   Their divorce rate is nil, like 2% or less. There is fruit here.   Family values are nourished like crazy and encouraged.

Look, I have to be fair, EO - CAN be that way, but it is not common - especially in America.  The church here is embedded in a wordly manner, and the parishoners work within the world and often accept worldly things.  (common not absolute).  It corrupts.   Just look at the forum for examples, all this birth control talk, when children are a heritage to the Lord.    Mennonites are not always rich, but the values based in simplicity leads to a modest lifestyle where the good stewardship of finances allows for large families.  It sounds like a breeding factory to many, because it is misunderstood.  

The EO church CAN nourish this, but most often does not.  I fully understand why, as it doesn't often "go there" to preach and "dictate" parts of the family life.  Is this good?  Sure it can be.  Do Mennonites seem "overbearing", yes they can.   But at the end of the day, a typical Mennonite family ends with a bible reading in a plain open room with a wife and many children around.

Yes, in this manner the EO church frustrates me, and I agree it can nourish, hasn't always, but unfortunately the tight bond of most EO communities is gone.

Example, we went to go visit my sister in Connecticut.  We were told by a Mennonite to stop off in Kentucky at their Sister's house for the night.  It left me stumped.   So we drove many hours that day.  We pulled down some long farm roads.  We get to a house. (by the way they were conservative and didn't have phones).   So we knock on the door.   A woman opens the door and says - "Can I help you?"   We said "Hi, your sister told us to come by here as we are traveling from Texas to Connecticut".   She opens up her arms and says loudly "WELCOME!"  She smiled, welcomed our family in.  She gave us supper, put us up for the night, and we helped chore in the morning (and I learned about stitching horse tack / super thick leather).     She next to begged for us to stop by on the way back, which we did... Again welcomed, no notice.  

The community is awesome with those folks.  And while the Eastern Orthodox church I agree CAN and HAS nourished those types of relationships, it unfortunately seems somewhat less that way from my experience.  I have been welcomed by Monasteries and Priests though, so I must be fair.  The hospitality was nice.  "family monastics" is the best way I can describe many of them - which arguably one could claim came from the church.

First, I find it telling that you're offening me very elementary lectures on my own faith of origin; telling, because it seems to me to demonstrate a sort of solipsism that tends to inform your relation to the OC.net community at large. But I'll pass that over, lest anybody think I felt offense.

Second, I urge you to admit to yourself that the Church is not indentical to a hierarch or an emperor or an era's course of action or even all of them put together. This is not to excuse the Church's hierarchs or emperors or courses of action -- it is to allow you to be blessed with an illumination that the Church is something different and more. More nearly is the Church the laos and martyrs you and I admire than she is even her whole hierarchy in synod, were it desirable or holy or possible to make such a separation. But she is more even than that, and I pray you can open your eyes to Things Unseen.

Certainly you seem to desire earnestly what you know not how to have. It is time to allow others, countless others in this world and in the world to come, to come alongside and aid you, as they so desire to, and to cease your own efforts when you know them by themselves (and this is not a fault of yours more than it is a fault of the nature of man) to be ineffectual.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #257 on: July 16, 2014, 12:15:04 AM »
...

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches. ...

...

This really struck me. Not because I involuntarily said "Lord, have mercy" on your wife. ;) But because what you are describing is something all Swiss-Germans had and all Europeans and at one time almost all peoples. What I am going to say next I can hardly explain. Forgive me if it is inarticulate. ... These community ties and other attributes that fill you with wonder existed side-by-side with the Church for a thousand and more years--and were nourished by her. Wherever the Church has managed to remain in flourishing condition, there too you will find hearty remnants of a laos with such attributes. I urge you to grasp the vision of this you've been given, in the person of your wife, even in our modern Western darkness, and to allow trust to grow in you toward the Father who loves mankind and toward the Church.

My friend, I have a book filled where the church (RC) burned parents alive in front of their children, children in front of their parents....   It's thicker than all get up.  I'd suggest it for any Christian.  It's called Martyr's Mirror.  It's online.
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/
Quote
Here we might adduce much more, but since it is not our purpose to dispute about this point, but simply to show from the unadorned testimonies of the holy evangelists and apostles, that baptism was administered in the first century only to adult (that is, penitent and believing) persons, we shall leave this subject, and proceed to give an account of those who, according to history, have, either by word or by deed, maintained this doctrine.
I prefer my fiction straight.
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

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,486
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #258 on: July 16, 2014, 12:15:47 AM »
Quote
Certainly you seem to desire earnestly what you know not how to have. It is time to allow others, countless others in this world and in the world to come, to come alongside and aid you, as they so desire to, and to cease your own efforts when you know them by themselves (and this is not a fault of yours more than it is a fault of the nature of man) to be ineffectual.

I admire your optimism, Porter, but a basic familiarity with Yesh's posting history, including the thread topics he's started, speak otherwise.  :(
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,184
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #259 on: July 16, 2014, 12:21:33 AM »
Quote
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/
Quote
Here we might adduce much more, but since it is not our purpose to dispute about this point, but simply to show from the unadorned testimonies of the holy evangelists and apostles, that baptism was administered in the first century only to adult (that is, penitent and believing) persons, we shall leave this subject, and proceed to give an account of those who, according to history, have, either by word or by deed, maintained this doctrine.
I prefer my fiction straight.

I didn't know anybody contested this. I thought this fact is what led to koumbaroi and other aspects of catechumenate. Of course, once the norm was to encounter Christianity by entering the cradle, then details of participation in the sacraments by children would have to be definitively hashed out (something many Anabaptist-related groups came to realize for themselves once they gained some stability).

Also, and as I've said in another thread, to understand the Anabaptist movement it's necessary to understand the apocalyptic horrors of the 1500s in the West. These folks (and they were much more numerous than the narrowness of their heirs would indicate, stretching from Poland to Italy to Ireland) were simply convinced the world was at an end, that the Church had perished from the earth, and that it was up to the laos (my term, not theirs) to survive by organizing themselves without the Church. To this end, they looked to several examples: peasants' and artisans' councils, monastics, Cathars and Waldenses, and the Book of Acts. In the end, almost all of them perished or were persuaded to submit to whatever the church of their state happened to be. But unless we make ourselves fully aware of the perverse poverty of the shepherding the Pope, the bishops (Roman or Protestant), and the nobles of that day afforded the people, we do not (in my opinion) judge righteous judgment when we condemn Anabaptism.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 12:35:06 AM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,184
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #260 on: July 16, 2014, 01:29:42 AM »
...

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches. ...

...

This really struck me. Not because I involuntarily said "Lord, have mercy" on your wife. ;) But because what you are describing is something all Swiss-Germans had and all Europeans and at one time almost all peoples. What I am going to say next I can hardly explain. Forgive me if it is inarticulate. ... These community ties and other attributes that fill you with wonder existed side-by-side with the Church for a thousand and more years--and were nourished by her. Wherever the Church has managed to remain in flourishing condition, there too you will find hearty remnants of a laos with such attributes. I urge you to grasp the vision of this you've been given, in the person of your wife, even in our modern Western darkness, and to allow trust to grow in you toward the Father who loves mankind and toward the Church.

I think I've found a way to be slightly more articulate about the practical part of this.

Think of a group of "homeschoolers" who've come together to live as the Amish. They ascribe to some list of doctrines an Amish elder recommended, dress the same as best they can, arrange their hierarchy the same way, and even read the same old German books.

Yet when their children grow up, or even before, this community is riven with warrings and scandals, forsakings and mental illness and collapses. If your experience is what I think it is, you know my story is not a piece of fiction but the rule.

At the same time, the traditional Amish community they imitated continues as placidly as it has for four hundred years. What is the difference? We may not be able easily to describe what the Amish community has that the posing community hasn't, but we do know this: it is something corporate, it is something ancient.

Without pretending any direct link from this ineffable something, you so admire, and the Church, I do want you to cast back your spiritual eye to a time when the Church was the shepherd of man. What was different for the bulk of men then compared to now? Councils and emperors can be invoked, revolutions and reformations blamed, and all with good reason, yet the eerie vastness of the difference we still may not be able easily to explain. One thing we sense: it was something corporate, it was ... a faith stalwartly ancient ...

I know that when you observe your wife's origins there is a part of you, which cannot utter words, that is deeply moved. Pray that God illuminate that part.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,825
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #261 on: July 16, 2014, 02:24:23 AM »

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,466
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #262 on: July 16, 2014, 07:40:51 AM »
...

The Anabaptist stuff is mostly because I married a Mennonite who is a fantastic wife.  The tight community around her church and family is something most would drool over.  It amazes me.  The non-resistance and modesty is something to be admired.  Mostly fruits from the family life of Mennonites is what I adore.  They also have an amazing history and interesting possible ties to old churches. ...

...

This really struck me. Not because I involuntarily said "Lord, have mercy" on your wife. ;) But because what you are describing is something all Swiss-Germans had and all Europeans and at one time almost all peoples. What I am going to say next I can hardly explain. Forgive me if it is inarticulate. ... These community ties and other attributes that fill you with wonder existed side-by-side with the Church for a thousand and more years--and were nourished by her. Wherever the Church has managed to remain in flourishing condition, there too you will find hearty remnants of a laos with such attributes. I urge you to grasp the vision of this you've been given, in the person of your wife, even in our modern Western darkness, and to allow trust to grow in you toward the Father who loves mankind and toward the Church.

I think I've found a way to be slightly more articulate about the practical part of this.

Think of a group of "homeschoolers" who've come together to live as the Amish. They ascribe to some list of doctrines an Amish elder recommended, dress the same as best they can, arrange their hierarchy the same way, and even read the same old German books.

Yet when their children grow up, or even before, this community is riven with warrings and scandals, forsakings and mental illness and collapses. If your experience is what I think it is, you know my story is not a piece of fiction but the rule.

At the same time, the traditional Amish community they imitated continues as placidly as it has for four hundred years. What is the difference? We may not be able easily to describe what the Amish community has that the posing community hasn't, but we do know this: it is something corporate, it is something ancient.

Without pretending any direct link from this ineffable something, you so admire, and the Church, I do want you to cast back your spiritual eye to a time when the Church was the shepherd of man. What was different for the bulk of men then compared to now? Councils and emperors can be invoked, revolutions and reformations blamed, and all with good reason, yet the eerie vastness of the difference we still may not be able easily to explain. One thing we sense: it was something corporate, it was ... a faith stalwartly ancient ...

I know that when you observe your wife's origins there is a part of you, which cannot utter words, that is deeply moved. Pray that God illuminate that part.

This.

Those of us from non-mainline traditions and heritages (won't clutter the thread with mine, but pm if you want) see you in essence chasing a culture. You idealize it, ignoring that there are things in it that you also would be forced to dislike if you really thought on it.

You rail on about 'fathers' and yet is not Menno a church father for your wife's tradition, accorded the same respect? Do they not have elders who are respected for their wisdom? My family's tradition does.

A rose by any other name.... 

You make the game a semantic one, rather than one of substance.

You are struggling so hard to continually put up roadblocks behind you as you walk away from Orthodoxy, so that you can point to them and say 'look! I cannot go back. The way is blocked, by the debris in Orthodoxy's proverbial eye'

Brother, look at the plank, not at the debris.

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,839
  • Excelsior
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #263 on: July 16, 2014, 07:50:28 AM »
St. George looks nothing like Mithras. Not even close.

How he can think to compare a real-life soldier from Lydda to a mythical character from pre-Christian times is beyond me. He may as well say a pine tree is the same thing as a willow tree, because they both are called trees.

Then again, he doesn't want facts, and he doesn't care.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #264 on: July 16, 2014, 09:29:55 AM »
Yesh, for me, I struggle with the concept of melding so many different traditions into one.  I could understand if you were Mennonite, or Messianic Jew or whatever else you decided to be, but the most confusing part of it is not that you identify with any one of those, it is that you identify with ALL of those. It is almost as if whatever you read sounds to you like a good idea and you syncretically add parts of it to your faith concept.  I don't think Christ or the Apostles ever envisioned such a faith.

I think reasonable minds can and do disagree over things like icon veneration. Both sides have some good arguments. The greater issue beyond icons and St. Constantine and liturgical implements is what process do you use to formulate your faith?  You say it is solely from Scripture, but every heresy ever formulated came from Scripture. Everyone from Arius to Sabellius gleaned their theories from Scripture. Not only that, but by all accounts, many of the heretics were nice, kind people. They probably would have taken you in to their home and fed you if you stopped there for the night, they would have fed you. Even today, modern day Arians, the Mormons, are some of the nicest people you can run into.  That doesn't make their teachings any less dangerous and damnable.

The strong reactions you get here are largely out of a sense of frustration that you nibble at the edges of Orthodoxy without addressing the root. The Orthodox Church has a coherent, consistent way of explaining how Truth has decended from it throughout the ages. You may or may not agree with their explanation, but at least there is logic behind it. Orthodoxy argues from the standpoint of Apostolic Succession, from Tradition, from countless multitudes of holy men who have lived and died for Christ.  Where does your faith yield from?  The best I can figure is that it is from your own personal interpretation of Scripture combined with some info from websites of dubious veracity.  Perhaps there is something deeper there, some font of wisdom that you have tapped and just not shared with us, but until you can resolve that fundamental question, your skepticism against Orthodoxy will remain as one hitting his head against a wall.
God bless!

Offline john_mo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 894
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #265 on: July 16, 2014, 09:43:32 AM »
Yesh, for me, I struggle with the concept of melding so many different traditions into one.  I could understand if you were Mennonite, or Messianic Jew or whatever else you decided to be, but the most confusing part of it is not that you identify with any one of those, it is that you identify with ALL of those. It is almost as if whatever you read sounds to you like a good idea and you syncretically add parts of it to your faith concept.  I don't think Christ or the Apostles ever envisioned such a faith.

I think reasonable minds can and do disagree over things like icon veneration. Both sides have some good arguments. The greater issue beyond icons and St. Constantine and liturgical implements is what process do you use to formulate your faith?  You say it is solely from Scripture, but every heresy ever formulated came from Scripture. Everyone from Arius to Sabellius gleaned their theories from Scripture. Not only that, but by all accounts, many of the heretics were nice, kind people. They probably would have taken you in to their home and fed you if you stopped there for the night, they would have fed you. Even today, modern day Arians, the Mormons, are some of the nicest people you can run into.  That doesn't make their teachings any less dangerous and damnable.

The strong reactions you get here are largely out of a sense of frustration that you nibble at the edges of Orthodoxy without addressing the root. The Orthodox Church has a coherent, consistent way of explaining how Truth has decended from it throughout the ages. You may or may not agree with their explanation, but at least there is logic behind it. Orthodoxy argues from the standpoint of Apostolic Succession, from Tradition, from countless multitudes of holy men who have lived and died for Christ.  Where does your faith yield from?  The best I can figure is that it is from your own personal interpretation of Scripture combined with some info from websites of dubious veracity.  Perhaps there is something deeper there, some font of wisdom that you have tapped and just not shared with us, but until you can resolve that fundamental question, your skepticism against Orthodoxy will remain as one hitting his head against a wall.

Exactly.  I've asked him before which part of Orthodoxy he identifies with (cuz it's clearly not everything) but have yet to receive an answer.  Seems Über-cafeteria.
Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #266 on: July 16, 2014, 10:36:21 AM »
The Church at Dura-Europos was a house church...

It's not the first time he's been told that ....

It was.. nevermind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos#The_house_church
Your source contradicts you, which happens a lot.  As I pointed out, it points out that the Mithraneum was some distance from the Church.

He's posting images of similarity to icons from a church that was a mithraeum.  I was asking for pre 150AD icons, or more importantly writings of icon usage in worship.
As anyone who goes to the links posts can find out, you were looking for pre300AD icons, and then when they were produced, you changed to 150AD.  You still haven't provided us any pre150AD New Testament.

The images I posted show "similarity" as his examples, but doesn't mean the icons are that.
As biro pointed out, they don't look alike at all.

Speaking of seeing things that aren't there, you have a better picture to back this up?

Wow, sun disk halos on the left "icon".
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 10:38:12 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Adela

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,095
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #267 on: July 16, 2014, 10:44:44 AM »
How is it that everybody got it wrong, up until God sent us Yesh to enlighten us?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 10:45:00 AM by Adela »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,486
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #268 on: July 16, 2014, 10:45:45 AM »
How is it that everybody got it wrong, up until God sent us Yesh to enlighten us?

Indeed!  :-*
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How are icons different than the golden calf?
« Reply #269 on: July 16, 2014, 11:18:46 AM »
How is it that everybody got it wrong, up until God sent us Yesh to enlighten us?

He says he's not here to proselytize, then admits that he posts these things out of concern for our souls.  ::) Whatever.
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.