Question: icon veneration obligatory?
KerbyRials
seventh ecumenical council's ruling on icon veneration, which as I understand
it, is considered infallible by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The
bishops ruled in that council that not to venerate icons will result in
anathema (e.g. eternity in hell unless the person repents). (“...We salute
the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. ....
Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.”) I have
never seen it stated in Orthodox or Catholic publications that such is a
requirement for salvation, and yet this seems to be the inescapable conclusion.
Has anyone ever seen a publication that stated that this is a requirement of
salvation? It seems to me that this is a rock and a hard place for
Orthodox/Catholic theology -- if indeed this is a condition of salvation, then
it needs to be clearly proclaimed as essential, or else millions will go to
hell. If it is not, then the seventh council was not infallible, which opens
another can of worms.
Thanks for any insights on this.
God bless,
Kerby
Digim...@starpower.net
No it is NOT a requirement for salvation. It is not even required icons
be venerated. The only stipulation is that you have nothing against
those who do and the action itself. Don't sweat the small stuff... :-)
Learner
This is an interesting issue in Orthodoxy. On one hand, many Orthodox
will give an answer similar to yours, while others will say that if one
denies icons, they also deny the incarnation.
The 7th Ecumenical Council, which imposed icons on the Church decreed:
"Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the
honourable images! ****Those who do not hold, let them be anathema.
Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the
Church.****"
Learner
Joe Orthodox
will harangue otherwise without end, despite being corrected countless
times.
Learner
At least we agree on something!
Learner
Alexander Arnakis
>
>This is an interesting issue in Orthodoxy. On one hand, many Orthodox
>will give an answer similar to yours, while others will say that if one
>denies icons, they also deny the incarnation.
>
The Orthodox principle is that one must not deny the validity of icons
(that is, be an Iconoclast). Whether one actually venerates the icons
is a matter of personal choice.
Learner
Ecumenical Council taught.
AGGreen
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104866721.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> So the 7th Ecumenical Council was in error Joey?
> At least we agree on something!
***The pathetic hate-mongering heretic, led astray by a Jezebel, vomits yet
again!
AGGreen
***And this, you idiot, has nothing to do with whether Orthodox Christians
MUST venerate icons. It only anathematizes those who would prevent people
from venerating if they so choose. The hate-mongering heretic fails again.
Learner
"We salute the venerable images. We anathematize those who do not do
so.
Anathema to those who presume to apply to the venerable images the
things said in Holy Scripture of idols. Anathema to those who do not
salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the
sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say Christians turn to the
sacred images as to gods."
> The hate-mongering heretic fails again.
It is your Church, and not I, who are handing out curses.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
Yes - if you disagree that Icons are to be venerated, you are not
Orthodox. If you simply chose not to venerate them personally, then
there is no command from the Council.
Prety clear.
-Stephen
Learner
"...We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who
do not do this. .... Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and
venerable images."?
But, your answer really boils down to semantics. The rules concerning
the veneration of icons were established, amid a great deal of
controversy, under the fist of an iconodule ruler - Irene.
Those who were opposed to the practice were automatically excluded from
"The Church", and if we exclude all of those who disagree, we are left
only with yes-people. That does not mean, however, that all Christians
accept this dogma, it simply means that those who do not are declared
to be outside of the church.
The issue of icons points out one of the most serious flaws in the
claim that Orthodoxy somehow represents the faith of the Apostles.
Orthodoxy really represents an authoritatively controlled/forced
evolution of dogma. The NT and writings of the earliest Fathers gives
us no acceptance of the idea of icon veneration.
In my mind, the fact that the dogma supporting icon veneration was not
declared until more than seven centuries after the time of Christ is a
huge problem for Orthodoxy's claim to be the faith of the Apostles.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>But what about :
>
>"...We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who
>do not do this. .... Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and
>venerable images."?
Context is everything - as is how the ruling of the council was put
into practice. There is absolutely no evidence for imposition of
your over-literalist view on every parish everywhere. I doubt that
it happened. Evidence suggests that icon veneration is a personal
issue, based on conscience, NOT a required act.
>But, your answer really boils down to semantics. The rules concerning
>the veneration of icons were established, amid a great deal of
>controversy, under the fist of an iconodule ruler - Irene.
The church rightly condemns those who reject icons as idols or who
refuse to allow them in their churches, or who refuse to allow them
to be venerated. Can you show me a single instance of someone who
was put out of the church expressly and solely for refusing to venerate
an icon on command??
>Those who were opposed to the practice were automatically excluded from
>"The Church", and if we exclude all of those who disagree, we are left
>only with yes-people. That does not mean, however, that all Christians
>accept this dogma, it simply means that those who do not are declared
>to be outside of the church.
How else do you elminate heretics from your midst? If I came to your
church and started teaching Orthodox theology, would you permit
that, or would you require me to teach the approved theology?? Hmm??
You're great with the criticism - but your own criticism condemns
your won practices!!!
>The issue of icons points out one of the most serious flaws in the
>claim that Orthodoxy somehow represents the faith of the Apostles.
It does. A religion dreamt up in the 60's is hardly in a position
to claim Apostolic authority of ANY kind.
>Orthodoxy really represents an authoritatively controlled/forced
>evolution of dogma. The NT and writings of the earliest Fathers gives
>us no acceptance of the idea of icon veneration.
They sure don't give us ANY idea of independant churches, determining
their own doctrines and ignoring the teaching of the Apostles like
Calvary Chapel does.
Once again - your position can't stand up to your own criticism.
>In my mind, the fact that the dogma supporting icon veneration was not
>declared until more than seven centuries after the time of Christ is a
>huge problem for Orthodoxy's claim to be the faith of the Apostles.
>Learner
Hardly - dogma is declared in the face of controversy, not just because
it can be declared. Look at the history of the councils.
I am of the opinion that you never actually learned any Orthodox
theology, and are using some sort of prepared anti-Orthodox text. I've
seen lots of these in circulation and your arguments appear to almost
be cut and paste from one of them.
When you are interested in understanding real Orthodox theology, let me
know. But please refrain from criticising that which you do not understand
in the least. It's unseemly.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Digim...@starpower.net
confuse the terms ICON and IDOL Learner...we worship Jesus, we
vernerate Icons. Do you consider Jesus an Idol?
ARCEO Moderator
will result in conflict and unchristian bickering. You should seek
answers to your questions elsewhere.
ARCEO Moderator
Joe Orthodox
> But what about :
>
> "...We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who
> do not do this. .... Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and
> venerable images."?
>
> But, your answer really boils down to semantics. The rules concerning
> the veneration of icons were established, amid a great deal of
> controversy, under the fist of an iconodule ruler - Irene.
It comes down to your poor reading comprehension, despite the help given
you, and an unwillingness to see anything beyond your own blinding
hatred for Orthodox Christians.
> Those who were opposed to the practice were automatically excluded from
> "The Church", and if we exclude all of those who disagree, we are left
> only with yes-people. That does not mean, however, that all Christians
> accept this dogma, it simply means that those who do not are declared
> to be outside of the church.
>
> The issue of icons points out one of the most serious flaws in the
> claim that Orthodoxy somehow represents the faith of the Apostles.
You've been spanked over this too many times to count.
> Orthodoxy really represents an authoritatively controlled/forced
> evolution of dogma. The NT and writings of the earliest Fathers gives
> us no acceptance of the idea of icon veneration.
Oh, really? So why do Protestants venerate the icon of the cross and
that processed wooden thing called the Bible? Another of your slow
learner, infinitely repeated errors. I guess I'll spank you again...
“He is the image (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God, the firstborn
over all creation.” – Colossians 1:15
“Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all.
But now God has appeared in the flesh and lived among humans, I make
an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I
worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and
deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I
will not cease from worshipping the matter through which my salvation
has been effected.”
- St. John of Damascus, On Icons
“We do not adore as gods the figures and images of the saints. For if it
was the mere wood of the image that we adored as God, we should likewise
adore all wood, and not, as often happens, when the form grows faint,
throw the image into the fire. And again, as long as the wood remains in
the form of a cross, I adore it on account of Christ who was crucified
upon it. When it falls to pieces, I throw them into the fire.”
- St. Leontius of Naples (d. about 650AD)
The truth, Lerner, is that the overwhelming majority of Christian
history has been one of the veneration of icons, not your silly New Age
Non-Denominational Charismaniac Calvary Chapel. That leaves a burden
for you to explain why God's truth disappeared, as you see it, for
nearly 1800 hundred years until some crank started the Pentecostal
movement which eventually merged with Anabaptism to form your mongrel
Calvary Chapel a few decades ago in the midst of a bong fog.
> In my mind, the fact that the dogma supporting icon veneration was not
> declared until more than seven centuries after the time of Christ is a
> huge problem for Orthodoxy's claim to be the faith of the Apostles.
> Learner
As Stephen noted, you can't withstand your own criticism. For one
thing, the NT gives us the first icon, Christ. Secondly, why is the
decision of an Ecumenical Council seven centuries after Christ a huge
problem, but the dogma of sola scriptura FIFTEEN CENTURIES after Christ
perfectly acceptable to you? Your silly hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and
fallacious ramblings know no bounds.
Joe Orthodox
> "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Those who were opposed to the practice were automatically excluded from
>>"The Church", and if we exclude all of those who disagree, we are left
>>only with yes-people. That does not mean, however, that all Christians
>>accept this dogma, it simply means that those who do not are declared
>>to be outside of the church.
>
> How else do you elminate heretics from your midst? If I came to your
> church and started teaching Orthodox theology, would you permit
> that, or would you require me to teach the approved theology?? Hmm??
You wouldn't be given air time on the high tech sound system, that's for
sure. They'd shun you like a purple plague and tell you Satan has
gotten ahold of your mind. They probably got some hyper-emotional,
sweaty, noisy exorcism ready to fix your "problem."
Alexander Arnakis
<arceomo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>ARCEO Moderator
Knock it off, Kevin! Everybody knows that this is an unmoderated
newsgroup.
AGGreen
"ARCEO Moderator" <arceomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104885317.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
***Since when did this NG have a moderator? And the reason we have bickering
is because of the heretic trolls who infect it.
KerbyRials
Digimortal and learner. (Resend to me if you wouldn't mind --
kerby...@aol.com)
Be that as it may, I must say that I have read nothign that resolves the
dilemma. The council said clearly that not to venerate icons is to be under
anathema. It certainly did, as you noted, put the anathema on those who spoke
against icons, but it also put it on those "who do not salute the holy icons".
Either the council was wrong, or there are millions under anathema. The fact
that this is rarely stated (actually never stated) seems to be a tacit
understanding that the council was wrong in this respect, seems to me.
ARCEO Moderator
trolls are not the cause of bickering. Unchristian behavior is.
ARCEO Moderator
Joe Orthodox
> Somehow I did not get the previous posts. Only got the last 3 from Alex,
> Digimortal and learner. (Resend to me if you wouldn't mind --
> kerby...@aol.com)
>
> Be that as it may, I must say that I have read nothign that resolves the
> dilemma. The council said clearly that not to venerate icons is to be under
> anathema. It certainly did, as you noted, put the anathema on those who spoke
Kerby, the council says nothing about what constitutes veneration or how
frequently one is to venerate such. Saluting (whatever that is),
kissing, and bowing are forms of veneration, and we do these things to
uphold the traditional form of veneration of our forebears, but these
were the local customs of that era for showing deference to another person.
Secondly, once again you can't turn this into a matter of document
proof-texting without looking at the practice itself and the Church's
actions. As Stephen wrote, no one has ever been anathemized for not
bowing and kissing icons. With this being the case, you're obviously
misreading and misunderstanding the council's decision, and its intent
to reject the heresy of Iconoclasm which is heartily embraced today by
many fundamentalist Protestants. The purpose of the council was to
condemn and correct the error that icon veneration is idolatry, not to
set up a how-to manual on how to venerate icons.
Learner
Joe "ain't smoochin' no icon" Orthodox wrote:
> > Be that as it may, I must say that I have read nothign that
resolves the
> > dilemma. The council said clearly that not to venerate icons is to
be under
> > anathema. It certainly did, as you noted, put the anathema on
those who spoke
>
> Kerby, the council says nothing about what constitutes veneration or
how
> frequently one is to venerate such. Saluting (whatever that is),
> kissing, and bowing are forms of veneration, and we do these things
to
> uphold the traditional form of veneration of our forebears, but these
> were the local customs of that era for showing deference to another
person.
Wrong once again. For someone who fancies himself a defender of
Orthodoxy, you are quit ignorant of your faith.
The council did, in fact, say something on the topic:
"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other
material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the
sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and
in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and
Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the
venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these
representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at
them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they
should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor
(timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is
reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the
divine nature { {Ópr rendered tyµpis icon is in effect transmitted to
the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality
for which it stands."
[http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8071.asp]
> Secondly, once again you can't turn this into a matter of document
> proof-texting without looking at the practice itself and the Church's
> actions.
No, he is reading the text for what it really says - not for what some
neo-Orthodox converts want it to say.
Please not that Orthodox apologists spend a lot of time and effort to
defend the practice of the venerating Icons. This is not done to bring
others into the Orthodox Church, but to attempt to rationalize to the
faithful the reasons for continuing this practice which was not found
in early Christianity.
> As Stephen wrote, no one has ever been anathemized for not
> bowing and kissing icons.
Not recently, at least. A lot of blood was shed over the issue a few
centuries ago.
It is also significant that Orthodoxy teaches that those who are not in
favor of icons also deny the incarnation.
> With this being the case, you're obviously misreading and
misunderstanding the
> council's decision, and its intent to reject the heresy of Iconoclasm
which is
> heartily embraced today by many fundamentalist Protestants.
Crying heresy is not really something on which Orthodoxy can take the
high ground, so I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Afterall,
it was your Church [not the Catholics or Protestants] that gave the
world Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism,
and even Iconoclasm!
To say that the Orthodox Church told us that these were heresies is
about as silly as a drunk bragging of his sobriety when he wakes up!
> The purpose of the council was to condemn and correct the error that
icon
> veneration is idolatry, not to set up a how-to manual on how to
venerate icons.
It was not an error. Venerating icons is wrong, and I will have to
answer to God soemday for doing this.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis [403 A.D.] said:
"You might tell me that the fathers hated the idols of the gentiles,
whereas we make images of saints as a memorial and worship these to
honor them. It is doubtless on this assumption that some of you have
dared...by means of different colors to represent images of Peter and
John and Paul, as I see by the inscription...of these false images. Now
first, let those who believe that by doing this they are honoring the
apostles, learn that instead they are dishonoring them."
In his letter to Theodosius, Ephiphanius wrote:
"Which of the ancient fathers ever painted an image of Christ and
placed it in a church or private house? What ancient bishop ever
dishonoured Christ by painting him on door curtains?"
The fact is that no one could raise a decent argument against
Epiphanius. This is because the making/veneration of icons was simply
not practiced in the early church. Icons came straight our of Paganism
and Pagan influence penetrated Christianity shortly after the
politicization of the Church under Constantine. Or is it "St.
Constantine", in spite of his tendency to murder his relatives?
Learner
Joe Orthodox
> Joe "spankin Lerner" Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>>Be that as it may, I must say that I have read nothign that
>
> resolves the
>
>>>dilemma. The council said clearly that not to venerate icons is to
>
> be under
>
>>>anathema. It certainly did, as you noted, put the anathema on
>
> those who spoke
>
>>Kerby, the council says nothing about what constitutes veneration or
>
> how
>
>>frequently one is to venerate such. Saluting (whatever that is),
>>kissing, and bowing are forms of veneration, and we do these things
>
> to
>
>>uphold the traditional form of veneration of our forebears, but these
>
>
>>were the local customs of that era for showing deference to another
>
> person.
>
> Wrong once again. For someone who fancies himself a defender of
> Orthodoxy, you are quit ignorant of your faith.
No, Lerner, you fail basic historical reality and reading comprehension.
You read what you want while ignoring what's truly going on. You've
been corrected on this numerous times already.
> The council did, in fact, say something on the topic:
>
> "We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other
> material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the
> sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and
> in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and
> Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the
> venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these
> representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at
> them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they
> should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor
> (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is
> reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the
> divine nature { {Ópr rendered tyľpis icon is in effect transmitted to
> the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality
> for which it stands."
> [http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8071.asp]
>
>
>
>>Secondly, once again you can't turn this into a matter of document
>>proof-texting without looking at the practice itself and the Church's
>
>
>>actions.
>
>
> No, he is reading the text for what it really says - not for what some
> neo-Orthodox converts want it to say.
No, he proof-texts the answer he wants regardless of how the Church,
which wrote the document, has used and implemented it. It's just an
erroneous reading of this council as saying the second amendment gives
me the right to own nuclear weapons. When your only method for
discerning truth is personally proof-texting a documents without regard
to long-standing historical practice and a Church to correct your
deviations, you get 30,000+ conflicting sects.
> Please not that Orthodox apologists spend a lot of time and effort to
> defend the practice of the venerating Icons. This is not done to bring
> others into the Orthodox Church, but to attempt to rationalize to the
> faithful the reasons for continuing this practice which was not found
> in early Christianity.
No, you spend a lot of time and effort issuing daily harangues without
any basis in reality.
>>As Stephen wrote, no one has ever been anathemized for not
>>bowing and kissing icons.
>
>
> Not recently, at least. A lot of blood was shed over the issue a few
> centuries ago.
Tell us when it happened, Lerner. No one has ever been anathemized for
not bowing and kissing icons. If your interpretation is truly correct
and this council anathemizes those who don't kiss and bow to icons, then
you should come up with some names of those anathemized. You can't do
it, but instead will cut and run in another troll direction.
> It is also significant that Orthodoxy teaches that those who are not in
> favor of icons also deny the incarnation.
Those who reject the theology of icons do indeed have a serious
misunderstanding of the Incarnation and instead embrace an ignorant view
of idolatry. This is primarily suffered by fundamentalist Protestants
who aren't very educated in history or Christian theology. The
Lutherans issued a statement some years ago supporting the Orthodox view
of iconography. A joint Lutheran-Orthodox statement in Helsinki
reaffirmed this position on the part of Lutherans:
"The Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787,
which rejected iconoclasm and restored the veneration of icons in the
churches, was not part of the tradition received by the Reformation.
Lutherans, however, rejected the iconoclasm of the 16th century, and
affirmed the distinction between adoration due to the Triune God alone
and all other forms of veneration. Through historical research this
council has become better known. Nevertheless it does not have the same
significance for Lutherans as it does for the Orthodox. Yet, Lutherans
and Orthodox are in agreement that the Second Council of Nicaea confirms
the christological teaching of the earlier councils and in setting forth
the role of images (icons) in the lives of the faithful reaffirms the
reality of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God, when it states:
'The more frequently, Christ, Mary, the mother of God, and the saints
are seen, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for
those who serve as models, and to pay these icons the tribute of
salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full
adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to
the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the
honored and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels
and to other sacred objects' (Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea)."
>>With this being the case, you're obviously misreading and
>
> misunderstanding the
>
>>council's decision, and its intent to reject the heresy of Iconoclasm
>
> which is
>
>>heartily embraced today by many fundamentalist Protestants.
>
>
> Crying heresy is not really something on which Orthodoxy can take the
> high ground, so I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Afterall,
> it was your Church [not the Catholics or Protestants] that gave the
> world Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism,
> and even Iconoclasm!
Wrong, as you've been the last hundred times you whipped out this stale
talking point. The Church didn't give anyone heresies, the Church
identified these heresies and condemned them. Then you and your
co-religionists embraced these you listed and more in the name of
diversity in interpretation of the "clear" meaning of the Bible!
> To say that the Orthodox Church told us that these were heresies is
> about as silly as a drunk bragging of his sobriety when he wakes up!
No, you commit the fallacy of division and composition by identifying
one heretical individual in the Orthodox Church, whether he's a bishop
or otherwise, and equate the Orthodox Church as being heretical. Many
have already pointed out your inability to think rationally and sensibly.
>>The purpose of the council was to condemn and correct the error that
>
> icon
>
>>veneration is idolatry, not to set up a how-to manual on how to
>
> venerate icons.
>
> It was not an error. Venerating icons is wrong, and I will have to
> answer to God soemday for doing this.
Answer to God? How? You believe you've already been saved! What the
hoot do you care what sins you commit from here on out?
> St. Epiphanius of Salamis [403 A.D.] said:
St. Epiphanius said... He follows the will of the Church and its
councils, as did all the Fathers. He wasn't even alive when the later
councils definitively issued a statement on the issue, which makes his
criticism irrelevant. Unlike your nodding donkey Iconoclastic Calvary
Chapel, the Orthodox Church allows free philosophical thought and
writing but when a decision is made then our learned Fathers accept that
ruling and move on. It's a decided issue not open to debate anymore.
In your cult, no one can think outside the box and if they do they have
to leave and start a new Iconoclastic denomination.
One Church Father doesn't speak for the entire Church unless a writing
of his becomes a Church standard, written into canon law through
conciliar decision. This is another of your frequent errors you can't
seem to escape.
KerbyRials
I don't know that it is profitable to go into this at length. However, I would
like to note a couple of things. First, the council itself anathematized
people for not venerating icons. No further anathema is needed it seems to me,
so the fact that no one was officially anathemized to your knowledge is not a
factor. No higher anathema can be issued than that of an ecumenical council,
which is infallible, as you know. Secondly, I think it is clear that the
writers meant nothing more nor less than average veneration of icons -- bowing,
kissing, etc., as it is done today. The church has maintained these traditions
since that time, without doubt, as that is the heart and soul of Orthodoxy. To
say that they had a different meaning of veneration than that we practice today
is unthinkable. The situation is still as it was to my view -- either (1) those
who do willingly do not venerate icons as is commonly done and reject them as
sinful are condemned by this council to hell, or (2) the council was wrong in
what it ruled, which brings into question the infallibility of ecumencal
councils. Personally I chose the latter.
Learner
Joe "don't know much about readin'" Orthodox wrote:
> No, Lerner, you fail basic historical reality and reading
comprehension.
> You read what you want while ignoring what's truly going on.
You've
> been corrected on this numerous times already.
Reading comprehension is your problem. Once again, according to the
official Greek Orthodox website:
> > The council did, in fact, say something on the topic:
> >
> > "We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some
other
> > material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the
> > sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings,
and
> > in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and
> > Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the
> > venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these
> > representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at
> > them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that
they
> > should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and
honor
> > (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is
> > reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for
the
> > divine nature { {Ópr rendered tyµpis icon is in effect
transmitted to
> > the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the
reality
> > for which it stands."
> > [http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8071.asp]
What part of the phrase "We define also that they should be kissed"
muddles your mind?
> > No, he is reading the text for what it really says - not for what
some
> > neo-Orthodox converts want it to say.
> No, he proof-texts the answer he wants regardless of how the Church,
> which wrote the document, has used and implemented it.
The Church decreed: "We salute the venerable images. We place under
anathema those who do not do this. .... Anathema to those who do not
salute the holy and venerable images." ?
If you have a problem with this, then take it up with your Church and
not with me. Perhaps you should do as I did when I faced this dilemma
- leave Orthodoxy.
> It's just an erroneous reading of this council as saying the second
> amendment gives me the right to own nuclear weapons.
Poor analogy.
> When your only method for
> discerning truth is personally proof-texting a documents without
regard
> to long-standing historical practice and a Church to correct your
> deviations, you get 30,000+ conflicting sects.
Or you fall into situational ethics and Orthodoxy becomes the religion
of relative absolutes.
> > Please not that Orthodox apologists spend a lot of time and effort
to
> > defend the practice of the venerating Icons. This is not done to
bring
> > others into the Orthodox Church, but to attempt to rationalize to
the
> > faithful the reasons for continuing this practice which was not
found
> > in early Christianity.
> No, you spend a lot of time and effort issuing daily harangues
without
> any basis in reality.
Yawn. More bile from Joey.
> Tell us when it happened, Lerner. No one has ever been anathemized
for
> not bowing and kissing icons. If your interpretation is truly
correct
> and this council anathemizes those who don't kiss and bow to icons,
then
> you should come up with some names of those anathemized. You can't
do
> it, but instead will cut and run in another troll direction.
Go to a library and read a book for once.
> > It is also significant that Orthodoxy teaches that those who are
not in
> > favor of icons also deny the incarnation.
> Those who reject the theology of icons do indeed have a serious
> misunderstanding of the Incarnation and instead embrace an ignorant
view
> of idolatry. This is primarily suffered by fundamentalist
Protestants
> who aren't very educated in history or Christian theology. The
> Lutherans issued a statement some years ago supporting the Orthodox
view
> of iconography. A joint Lutheran-Orthodox statement in Helsinki
> reaffirmed this position on the part of Lutherans:
The Lutherans were wrong.
Really, this incarnation argument is so childish, that I cannot imagine
how it ever was considered as serious. There are countless people
throughout
history who have believed in the incarnation and have never venerated
an image of Jesus.
A rejection of images means that one rejects the veneration of
imaginary images - which are nothing more than the creations of human
fantasy. They have nothing to do with one's views on the incarnation
and there are many Protestants who do not venerate icons, but still
believe firmly in the incarnation.
> > Crying heresy is not really something on which Orthodoxy can take
the
> > high ground, so I fail to see the relevance of your comment.
Afterall,
> > it was your Church [not the Catholics or Protestants] that gave the
> > world Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism,
Monothelitism,
> > and even Iconoclasm!
> Wrong, as you've been the last hundred times you whipped out this
stale
> talking point. The Church didn't give anyone heresies, the Church
> identified these heresies and condemned them. Then you and your
> co-religionists embraced these you listed and more in the name of
> diversity in interpretation of the "clear" meaning of the Bible!
Dance around it and dodge all you like. The historical fact is that
all three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of
heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and
640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years,
> Answer to God? How? You believe you've already been saved! What
the
Even though I am forgiven, there really was no excuse for my veneration
of icons.
> hoot do you care what sins you commit from here on out?
Learner
> Dear Joe,
> I don't know that it is profitable to go into this at length.
Having a discussion with this guy is basically a waste of time. I find
his constantly changing positions/arguments rather entertaining - a lot
like a Labrador Retriever, that I had as a child, who loved to chase
his tale. At least the Lab was pleasant!
> However, I wouldlike to note a couple of things.
> First, the council itself anathematized people for not venerating
icons.
True. That is the clear language of the text.
> No further anathema is needed it seems to me, so the fact that no one
was
> officially anathemized to your knowledge is not a factor. No higher
anathema
> can be issued than that of an ecumenical council, which is
infallible, as you
> know.
I agree with this analysis.
It was huge mistake for the Orthodox Church to declare that those who
do not venerate icons are anathema. No one in the NT or earliest
Christianity ever made, or venerated icons. This anathema effectively,
excludes the entire early Church which existed in an era before
veneration of icons became accepted/mandated practice. It is a major
change in Christianity, in spite of the fact that the Orthodox Church
wishes to present the practice as going back to the lifetime of Jesus -
which is an historical error.
> Secondly, I think it is clear that the
> writers meant nothing more nor less than average veneration of icons
-- bowing,
> kissing, etc., as it is done today. The church has maintained these
traditions
> since that time, without doubt, as that is the heart and soul of
Orthodoxy. To
> say that they had a different meaning of veneration than that we
practice today
> is unthinkable.
Joe and I went around and around on this a month or so ago.
He boasted that he, and nearly 1/2 of his congregation, did not "make
the rounds" of bowing and kissing icons. Joe was facing a fairly
typical "converts dilemma" and had to pretend that there were other
ways, not historically practiced in the Orthodox Church, to venerate
icons.
> The situation is still as it was to my view -- either (1) those
> who do willingly do not venerate icons as is commonly done and reject
them as
> sinful are condemned by this council to hell, or (2) the council was
wrong in
> what it ruled, which brings into question the infallibility of
ecumencal
> councils. Personally I chose the latter.
I also agree with #2.
The Orthodox have an odd faith in the 7 Church Councils, and they do
not give as much importance to the other Councils. I am not sure on
what they base this faith. The only example in the Bible was the
Jerusalem "Council" which was a disaster! This Council [Acts 15:29]
prohibited Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed to Pagan idols. But,
Paul had to countermand the Council's decree in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8.
By the way, the 7th Ecumenical Council did not settle the issue of
icsons. The Synod of Frankfort [794 A.D.] condemned the the 7th
Ecumenical Council, again rejecting icons. This is one reason why I do
not trust Councils. One council upholds one issue only to be denounced
by another and so forth.
Learner
Digim...@starpower.net
other new inovations of the "Spirit"??? This all spawned from the 1000s
of protestant denoms...and you sit and judge some doctrinal disputes in
the growing church 1000 years or more ago?!!?
Stephen M. Adams
>The council did, in fact, say something on the topic:
>
>"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other
>material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the
>sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and
>in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and
>Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the
>venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these
>representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at
>them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they
>should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor
>(timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is
>reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the
>divine nature { {=D3pr rendered ty=B5pis icon is in effect transmitted to
>the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality
>for which it stands."
>[http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8071.asp]
Note well: *should* - that is, they instruct that it is good, and
not to be prohibited:
*should be exhibited*
*should be kissed*
Neither of those statements make it a requirement, nor say anything
about anathemizing (or even excommunicating) someone who has no icons
in their home, or who fails to venerate them.
Does the above require that EVERY Orthodox Christian venerate EVERY
icon he encounters, no matter where it is encountered? That would
be a perverse reading of the text. As such, failure to venerate a
specific icon on a specific occasion cannot be grouns for any kind
of church discipline.
>Please not that Orthodox apologists spend a lot of time and effort to
>defend the practice of the venerating Icons. This is not done to bring
>others into the Orthodox Church, but to attempt to rationalize to the
>faithful the reasons for continuing this practice which was not found
>in early Christianity.
There is no need to rationalize the practice, it makes perfect sense
when one understands the statements of the 7th Council with regard to
the incarnation and images. No rationalization necessary.
>> As Stephen wrote, no one has ever been anathemized for not
>> bowing and kissing icons.
>
>Not recently, at least. A lot of blood was shed over the issue a few
>centuries ago.
There is a HUGE difference between an Iconoclast - one who seeks to
destroy icons, prohibit their veneration and cause their removal from
the churches.
Martin Luther risked his life to stop Iconoclasts from destroying
churches and church property in Germany. He was no iconoclast. No,
that is a Puritan/Evangelical mindset that is foreign to the mind
of the Church.
>It is also significant that Orthodoxy teaches that those who are not in
>favor of icons also deny the incarnation.
The Council made this point. And I would agree - denial of the propriety
of using icons is a denial of the truth of the incarnation. If Jesus was
truly man, there is no reason that he cannot be represented in an image,
whether it be an icon or (were it possible) a photograph.
But once again, I guarantee that you are of two minds - you would NOT
object to the use of pictures in a child's book about Jesus or some
other biblical figure. Why object to our use of them??
Or do you object solely to veneration?
>Crying heresy is not really something on which Orthodoxy can take the
>high ground, so I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Afterall,
>it was your Church [not the Catholics or Protestants] that gave the
>world Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism,
>and even Iconoclasm!
Yes, the people who taught these things came out of the Orthodox Church.
And the heresy was dealt with. Do you not deal with heresy in YOUR
church???? Can people believe anything they want and teach anything
they want in your church???
If you don't allow people to teach anything they want, without regard
to it being in line with youur congregation's theology, you are a hypocrite
for complaining about Orthodoxy in this way.
>It was not an error. Venerating icons is wrong, and I will have to
>answer to God soemday for doing this.
Actually, you will have to answer to God for rejecting His Holy Church.
>St. Epiphanius of Salamis [403 A.D.] said:
>
>"You might tell me that the fathers hated the idols of the gentiles,
>whereas we make images of saints as a memorial and worship these to
>honor them. It is doubtless on this assumption that some of you have
>dared...by means of different colors to represent images of Peter and
>John and Paul, as I see by the inscription...of these false images. Now
>first, let those who believe that by doing this they are honoring the
>apostles, learn that instead they are dishonoring them."
Personal opinion. And wrong. But not raised to the level of controversy
such that the church had to deal with it. The council's decision came
long after this.
>In his letter to Theodosius, Ephiphanius wrote:
>
>"Which of the ancient fathers ever painted an image of Christ and
>placed it in a church or private house? What ancient bishop ever
>dishonoured Christ by painting him on door curtains?"
Again, his opinion and his observation. Not the decision of a council.
>The fact is that no one could raise a decent argument against
>Epiphanius. This is because the making/veneration of icons was simply
>not practiced in the early church. Icons came straight our of Paganism
>and Pagan influence penetrated Christianity shortly after the
>politicization of the Church under Constantine. Or is it "St.
>Constantine", in spite of his tendency to murder his relatives?
Images were used in the Old Testament, by God's command. Deal with it.
Learner
Digimor...@starpower.net wrote:
> Was "Holy Laughter" ever practiced by the early church among the 100
> other new inovations of the "Spirit"???
Probably not. It is an innovation to Christianity, just as icons,
prayers for the dead, Saints, etc.
> This all spawned from the 1000s
> of protestant denoms...
Sure, that is what happens when you live in a society which allows
people to think for themselves and believe and worship as they please.
> and you sit and judge some doctrinal disputes in
> the growing church 1000 years or more ago?!!?
Sure, why not?
Learner
Alexander Arnakis
<JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>..... The purpose of the council was to
>condemn and correct the error that icon veneration is idolatry, not to
>set up a how-to manual on how to venerate icons.
>
I hope you don't mind that I took this snippet of your longer post as
a jumping-off point for the following comment:
The Seventh Ecumenical Council reached a compromise over the
Iconoclastic controversy that had been roiling the Church for a long
time. It took a reasonable middle position between the Iconoclasts
(who held that all icons, statues, etc., were idolatrous), and the
Iconodouls (whose practice verged on worship of icons).
The key element of the compromise was the clear differentiation
between "veneration" and "worship." "Worship" of icons was still
condemned -- that is, assigning religious significance to the physical
elements of the icon itself. On the other hand, "veneration" was
approved -- which meant honoring the object that the icon portrayed,
not the icon itself. (Thereafter, Orthodox tradition developed a set
of rules for iconography, so that the image would have an abstract
quality that would stress the separation between the physical and the
spiritual. In this, the Orthodox tradition differs from that of the
Roman Catholic West.)
My difficulty is not with the theoretical idea of veneration, but with
its practice as popular piety. All too often, the ordinary Orthodox
people carry "veneration" too far, so that it becomes
indistinguishable from "worship." Only occasionally do the Church
hierarchs speak up against such practices.
Joe Orthodox
Stephen, I and others adequately explained to you that no one was ever
anathemized. If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to produce
the evidence. The Church maintained no tradition of anathemizing those
who didn't venerate icons. Please go back and read the qualifying
"should" in the council's decision, and make careful note this was a
decision written by the Orthodox Church, implemented by the Orthodox
Church, and as such the Orthodox Church has exercised this conciliar
decision as it was intended, despite whatever "protestations" raised
1200 years later without regard to the OC's practice.
If you truly wish to understand the what the OC thinks and does
regarding the 7th Ecumenical Council, which we gave you, then please pay
attention to what we try to explain rather than proof-texting and
cutting up documents without regard to anything else.
KerbyRials wrote:
> Dear Joe,
> I don't know that it is profitable to go into this at length. However, I would
> like to note a couple of things. First, the council itself anathematized
> people for not venerating icons. No further anathema is needed it seems to me,
> so the fact that no one was officially anathemized to your knowledge is not a
> factor. No higher anathema can be issued than that of an ecumenical council,
> which is infallible, as you know. Secondly, I think it is clear that the
> writers meant nothing more nor less than average veneration of icons -- bowing,
> kissing, etc., as it is done today. The church has maintained these traditions
> since that time, without doubt, as that is the heart and soul of Orthodoxy. To
> say that they had a different meaning of veneration than that we practice today
> is unthinkable. The situation is still as it was to my view -- either (1) those
> who do willingly do not venerate icons as is commonly done and reject them as
> sinful are condemned by this council to hell, or (2) the council was wrong in
And here you clearly don't understand what it said, nor what an anathema
is. In your #1, the condemnation of those who reject the veneration of
icons is accurate, but it doesn't condemn those who don't venerate
icons. Again, it says one should venerate icons. This has already been
explained adequately.
Furthermore, an anathema does NOT condemn anyone to hell. It is a
designation of an offense that puts one outside of the visible Church.
Being outside the visible Church doesn't mean one isn't going to hell,
but instead means you've put yourself outside the visible sacramental
unity with other Orthodox Christians. The Orthodox Church does not
condemn anyone to hell. That's God's job.
Joe Orthodox
> Joe "readin Lerner the right act" Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>No, Lerner, you fail basic historical reality and reading
>
> comprehension.
>
>> You read what you want while ignoring what's truly going on.
>
> You've
>
>>been corrected on this numerous times already.
[snip continued lame attempts to avoid attention to Lerner's own hypocrisy]
>
>>No, he proof-texts the answer he wants regardless of how the Church,
>>which wrote the document, has used and implemented it.
>
>
> The Church decreed: "We salute the venerable images. We place under
> anathema those who do not do this. .... Anathema to those who do not
> salute the holy and venerable images." ?
>
> If you have a problem with this, then take it up with your Church and
> not with me. Perhaps you should do as I did when I faced this dilemma
> - leave Orthodoxy.
Evade, dance, harangue, whine, stomp, and pout all you want. You didn't
answer the question and your evasions won't save you. Once again,
Lerner... tell us the names of those the Church anathemized. You simply
don't know what you are talking about.
>>It's just an erroneous reading of this council as saying the second
>>amendment gives me the right to own nuclear weapons.
>
>
> Poor analogy.
Oh, yes. You whip out the ol' "poor analogy" response when you've just
took a rhetorical popping dead center on the nose. It's a correct
analogy of your hermeneutic.
[snip Lerner's troll dance]
> The Lutherans were wrong.
Wrong... why? Asserting such doesn't make it so. That's another
question you've continuously evaded because you know by referencing the
commandment that you use as the basis for your failed understanding of
graven images and the Incarnation: (1) you'll be shown to be violating
it as well, according to your superficial, literalist reading and (2)
your interpretation will easily be shown to be wrong because the
Israelites created and put graven images in their temple.
Read the statment next time rather than snip and harangue.
A joint Lutheran-Orthodox statement in Helsinki reaffirmed this position
on the part of Lutherans:
"The Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787,
which rejected iconoclasm and restored the veneration of icons in the
churches, was not part of the tradition received by the Reformation.
Lutherans, however, rejected the iconoclasm of the 16th century, and
affirmed the distinction between adoration due to the Triune God alone
and all other forms of veneration. Through historical research this
council has become better known. Nevertheless it does not have the same
significance for Lutherans as it does for the Orthodox. Yet, Lutherans
and Orthodox are in agreement that the Second Council of Nicaea confirms
the christological teaching of the earlier councils and in setting forth
the role of images (icons) in the lives of the faithful reaffirms the
reality of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God, when it states:
'The more frequently, Christ, Mary, the mother of God, and the saints
are seen, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for
those who serve as models, and to pay these icons the tribute of
salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full
adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to
the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the
honored and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels
and to other sacred objects' (Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea)."
You're stealing my lines again, O' Plagiarizing One.
> all three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of
> heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
> 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and
> 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years,
Which isn't the same as saying the Church was heretical. Again, you
modify your harangue when you've made a fool of yourself by committing
the fallacy of division and composition. By identifying one heretical
individual in the Orthodox Church, whether he's a bishop or otherwise,
you fallaciously equate the Orthodox Church as being heretical. Many
have already pointed out your inability to think rationally and sensibly.
Moreover, you've got 26 years (out of the Church's two thousand year
existence) where you can find a heretical bishop, yet not a single year
has gone by in your Calvary Chapel's 40 year existence when its entire
body, clergy and laity alike, were not embracing multiple heresies!
You've already beat us by numerical strength in heretics and length of
time for embracing a heresy! At least in the Orthodox Church, our
self-cleaning mechanism fixes the situation. Yours celebrates it with joy.
Here's an interesting article called "The Orthodox Church and Icons"
written the evangelical James Patrick Holding. It's on his apologetics
site and at least he has the depth of mind to investigate the issue and
he concludes you and your ill-educated friends are wrong. He concludes
his piece with a word of advice to the fundamentalists: "We close with
these observations: One should not exaggerate the dangers of falling
into idolatry, no matter how strange icon-veneration may seem to members
of theological traditions that have traditionally been suspicious of
liturgical art. Protestantism is the 'unusual' party in this respect,
not Orthodoxy (and specifically Evangelicalism: cf. e.g. the
stained-glass windows, etc of Episcopalian Protestantism). It is a
debate that should be approached with caution and not with our
perceptions in the fore."
And in response to those fundies who proof-text a Church Father's
writing produced before the Councils addressed Iconoclasm he writes,
"these writers [Fathers] were writing centuries before the Church really
worked out and resolved the issue in the iconoclast controversy." He
corrects you just as we have, O' Unlearned Fundie.
Mr. Holding writes in the article (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/icons.html):
"WHY were the Israelites commanded not to make graven images?...Graven
images were the standard method of pagan worship. They were
representations of false gods...an "image" NOT made for worship is
acceptable. In fact, we should not really call things like the cherubims
"images" at all -- an "image" in ancient thought is not merely something
that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that
serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity. Thus for
example ancient rulers in Egypt, Babylon, and elsewhere were referred to
as the "image" of a certain deity, not because they looked like the
deity, but because the deity's power and authority was thought to
operate through them.
With this understanding in mind, does the Orthodox use of icons violate
the command against graven images? Based on Sparks' and Whiteford's
description, and even though they seem unaware of this understanding of
"image," the answer seems to be no. Although Sparks correctly notes the
use of cherubim on the Ark (which Barker saw as contrary to the
restriction), as well as the fact that the other images were used as
idols; and though he also notes the existence of paintings and statues
depicting the likes of Peter and Paul, and notes that people were
apparently "deeply moved" by them, he does not apparently know the
background meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words for "image". Still, if
he did, it would not work against Orthodox use of icons as Sparks and
Whiteford describe them. His defense offers these points, however:
1. The icons make no effort to depict God. If they did, then they
would be objectionable.
2. Icons are actually word-pictures. In fact, Sparks uses the very
proverb above ("a picture is worth a thousand words") to describe the
purpose of icons.
On this accounting, reason 1 is a good point, but does not address the
key argument. Reason 2 has a much stronger basis -- the early church
(indeed the ancient world as a whole) was 90-95% illiterate. If icons
are understood as memory aids, then they are far, far from being
"images" of the sort forbidden by the Bible, no more so than would be a
Children's Picture Bible. Whiteford quotes Pope Gregory (590-604) as
saying, "For what writing presents to readers, this a picture presents
to the unlearned who behold, since in it even the ignorant see what they
ought to follow; in it the illiterate read." He then notes the problems
of functional illiteracy today, and notes as well that many people
(especially children) are pre-literate.
But that leads to the question, what of the parishoner I saw praying
before the icon? What of those who kiss or bow before icons in reverence
(and also may make the sign of the cross, recalling Christ's sacrifice)?
Sparks replies that icons are "windows to heaven, revealing the glory of
God" and actually "help to protect us from idolatry" by pointing us in
the right direction. They also "bring a revelation, a manifestation of
the unseen heavenly host of angels, saints and martyrs--yes, even the
eternal saving events--into our presence." [8-9] By comparison he points
to Daniel and Joshua bowing in veneration before an angel of God, and
the honor persons give one another in daily life (such as honoring one's
father and mother).
Sparks' example of Joshua and Daniel is open to question; Joshua at
least may have been seeing an example of the pre-incarnate Christ. Yet
Sparks' description, if we take it as doing justice to the Orthodox
view, does make it clear that icons and their use are not a violation of
the graven images command, even if they appear to be on the surface.
Though Sparks' language is a little vague, it does not indicate that the
icons are points of presence for a deity in the same sense that the
ancient Baal or Dagon figurine was. As he describes them, icons are
visual aids, and those who kiss and bow before them are giving respect,
not worship. Whiteford compares it to an American saluting a flag as a
"veneration" not of course of the cloth and dye, but of the ideal
represented by the flag; or he compares it to Jews kissing their copy of
the Torah.
Whiteford does, however, provide a rather questionable example as well.
He notes that when Polycarp was martyred, several disciples tried very
hard to retrieve his body. This actually reflects an ancient desire that
ANY body should be buried honorably -- not any particular veneration for
Polycarp. The ancients were deeply concerned for the preservation of ANY
body for reasons of honor, and this was an honorable burial for a person
deserving of honor, which to the ancients was as important as we would
regard paying the bills (per the work of Malina and Rohrbaugh). The
further observations of the date of martyrdom are a similar reflection.
Sparks notes the reply, "Why not just worship God?" His response: blank
walls are of no use, for "such barrenness [does not] serve to speak of
the presence of a living God." [9] One might remark in reply that the
Holy Spirit indwelling the believer bespeaks of that well enough. But if
we follow Sparks' explanation, icons might be best described as visual
aids for visual thinkers; the kissing and praying as a way (if rather
emotional and by Western standards, excessive) of saying "thank you" and
giving respect to those depicted, as one may kiss one's mother or father
and give them a hug. And if that is all there is to it, the "no graven
images" command is not applicable. (I will admit that as a "verbal"
thinker I personally find the idea of icons pointless.)
Of course one would not say that some Orthodox adherent may not fall
into the mistake of false worship through icons -- the line between
simple respect and outright worship is not very well-defined, and
Orthodoxy uses more Eastern modes of expression which Westerners find
too "mushy" -- just as one may point out that any Southern Baptist may
fall into the error of salvation by works or a God with a human body. At
the same time one cannot agree with Sparks that such things are
"indispensable for those who sincerely pursue and desire the fullness of
Christian worship" [20] -- for visually-oriented persons, or for the
illiterate, such things may be eminently useful and helpful for worship,
but they are hardly "indispensable." In short: The Orthodox use of icons
is no violation of the graven image command in and of itself; which is
not to say that it is not, like anything else, open for abuse and
subject to misuse or excess. Indeed, in the Western world it may be far
more open for abuse than in the East."
AGGreen
> Q.E.D. I rest my case. Your own words prove my point. Heretics and
> trolls are not the cause of bickering. Unchristian behavior is.
> ARCEO Moderator
***And you are most unChristian because you haven't the cajones to identify
yourself.
Cunneen
>> anathema.
The council said that to deny the veneration of icons is to be under anathema,
which is not the same thing at all.
Cunneen
>people for not venerating icons.
No, you are misinterpreting what "those who do not venerate icons" means. It
does not mean those who don't do it, but those who actively oppose it, those
who do not venerate icons AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. In that case, they not
only don't do it, they don't believe ANYONE should do it, and furthermore
forbid it being done. Those are the "iconoclasts" and it is they who are
anathematized.
KerbyRials
to be a clear evidence that the infallibility of councils is a doctrine without
foundation.
For instance, the six councils on Hesychasm -- four were for it, two were
against. And the councils on icons -- three against, two for (794, 754 and
820(?) against, and 787 and 830 (?) for).
AGGreen
"KerbyRials" <kerby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050106122400...@mb-m02.aol.com...
***Another contradictory point...some canons require full baptism when
heretics are admitted into the church, and some require chrismation only. Go
figure!
Al
Joe Orthodox
> I must agree. I also have found the constantly changing positions of councils
> to be a clear evidence that the infallibility of councils is a doctrine without
> foundation.
Well, then you've got some questions to answer. Your Assemblies of God
denomination believes in the doctrine of the Trinity, but this was given
to you by the first two Ecumenical Councils, which built upon the
writings of several Church Fathers. This doctrine states that there is
one Being made up of three distinct persons. This explanation of the
Godhead is nowhere in Scripture. Yet, you accept it... on what basis?
Because the Orthodox Church held Councils and told you so.
Then your canon of NT books was compiled by conciliar decision. To say
the Bible is the infallible Word of God but the means of deciding this
was fallible (i.e. Church Council) is logically impossible. If you say,
"Well, the council just recognized what was already true," this again is
illogical because for the statement to be correct, you must have another
infallible standard to measure against, a source telling you which books
are infallible and which aren't. Clearly, Scripture doesn't provide
such a list, nor do most of the books self-reference themselves as
written by God. If you say God told you personally, I'd like to receive
a copy of the audio recording, please.
> For instance, the six councils on Hesychasm -- four were for it, two were
> against. And the councils on icons -- three against, two for (794, 754 and
> 820(?) against, and 787 and 830 (?) for).
There are local councils, then there are Ecumenical Councils, then there
are Robber Councils. You can't have a council that contradicts previous
councils nor can it contradict long-standing, established Biblical and
theological practice. In that case, it would be a Robber Council.
Learner
Joe Orthodox wrote:
> Kerby,
>
> Stephen, I and others adequately explained to you that no one was
ever
> anathemized. If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to
produce
> the evidence. The Church maintained no tradition of anathemizing
those
> who didn't venerate icons.
That is not entirely true. Anathemas were pronounced against a number
of Iconoclasts - mainly the leaders of this movement, who were also
excommunicated.
The reason that there were no widespread anathemas/excommunications was
that the political climate of the Byzantine Empire largely favored the
Iconoclasts up to 842 - when icons were officially restored. Even
after this date, there were still a number of iconoclasts in the
Byzantine Empire.
It fascinates me that Canon 3 of this Council forbade the appointment
of Bishops by the Byzantine State. After Nicea II only bishops could
elect other bishops, and not the Emperor.
It should also be noted that Patriarch John VII (832-42) retired rather
than restoring icons in Byzantium. In fact, the Synod at
Constantinople [842] approved of the deposition of John VII and even
renewed the decree of the Second Council of Nicaea which excommunicated
Iconoclasts.
> Please go back and read the qualifying
> "should" in the council's decision, and make careful note this was a
> decision written by the Orthodox Church, implemented by the Orthodox
> Church, and as such the Orthodox Church has exercised this conciliar
> decision as it was intended, despite whatever "protestations" raised
> 1200 years later without regard to the OC's practice.
The "protestantions" were raised very loudly, and often very violently,
long before the Protestant Reformation - which also did not look kindly
on images.
> If you truly wish to understand the what the OC thinks and does
> regarding the 7th Ecumenical Council, which we gave you, then please
pay
> attention to what we try to explain rather than proof-texting and
> cutting up documents without regard to anything else.
> And here you clearly don't understand what it said, nor what an
anathema
> is. In your #1, the condemnation of those who reject the veneration
of
> icons is accurate, but it doesn't condemn those who don't venerate
> icons. Again, it says one should venerate icons. This has already
been
> explained adequately.
That is a matter of semantics. If one truly believes in the Orthodox
theology of icons, then they should have no problems venerating these
images. I told a Priest, a few years back, that I did not believe in
the veneration of icons. He complimented me for being honest, however,
he said that I should stay away from the Sacraments [Communion] until I
could reconcile my thoughts with the teachings of the Church. I could
never do this.
> Furthermore, an anathema does NOT condemn anyone to hell. It is a
> designation of an offense that puts one outside of the visible
Church.
This would be true if you believe that salvation exists outside of the
Church.
> Being outside the visible Church doesn't mean one isn't going to
hell,
> but instead means you've put yourself outside the visible sacramental
> unity with other Orthodox Christians. The Orthodox Church does not
> condemn anyone to hell. That's God's job.
However if grace is transmitted through the Sacraments of the Church,
then to be outside of the Church is the same as being not receiving
God's grace - which would effectively condemn and person to Hell.
Learner
Learner
> KerbyRials wrote:
> > I must agree. I also have found the constantly changing positions
of councils
> > to be a clear evidence that the infallibility of councils is a
doctrine without
> > foundation.
The fallibility of Councils was shown in the Bible, in the case of the
Council of Jerusalem - whose decisions were reversed by Paul.
> Well, then you've got some questions to answer. Your Assemblies of
God
> denomination believes in the doctrine of the Trinity, but this was
given
> to you by the first two Ecumenical Councils, which built upon the
> writings of several Church Fathers. This doctrine states that there
is
> one Being made up of three distinct persons. This explanation of the
> Godhead is nowhere in Scripture. Yet, you accept it... on what
basis?
> Because the Orthodox Church held Councils and told you so.
There are a couple of issues here.
First, the "Orthodox" and "Roman Catholic" Churches did not exist at
this point in history, so it is anachronistic to use this term.
Second, the Triune nature of God is totally Biblical [even in the OT]
and documents which long pre-date the Ecumenical Councils [ie our
friend the Didache] mention the Triune nature of God.
> Then your canon of NT books was compiled by conciliar decision. To
say
> the Bible is the infallible Word of God but the means of deciding
this
> was fallible (i.e. Church Council) is logically impossible. If you
say,
> "Well, the council just recognized what was already true," this again
is
> illogical because for the statement to be correct, you must have
another
> infallible standard to measure against, a source telling you which
books
> are infallible and which aren't. Clearly, Scripture doesn't provide
> such a list, nor do most of the books self-reference themselves as
> written by God. If you say God told you personally, I'd like to
receive
> a copy of the audio recording, please.
First of all, it was a Synod [of Carthage] and not a Council which
created a Canon of Scripture. As mentioned earlier, the Council of
Jerusalem - which, unlike latter Councils, was a true Apostolic Council
- made significant errors which Paul had to correct. There is no
Biblical, and certainly no historical, reason to believe that any
Council was infallible.
As for the Synod of Carthage, the participants used historical and
textual analysis similar to what modern students of history employ
today.
The criteria that they used were the apostolicity of the text, the
antiquity of the text, the historical authenticity of the text, the
ubiquity of the text and the catholicity of the text. The participants
agreed/debated opinions based on these factors.
There was no record of any supernatural event or Divine revelation at
this Synod.
> > For instance, the six councils on Hesychasm -- four were for it,
two were
> > against. And the councils on icons -- three against, two for (794,
754 and
> > 820(?) against, and 787 and 830 (?) for).
> There are local councils, then there are Ecumenical Councils, then
there
> are Robber Councils. You can't have a council that contradicts
previous
> councils nor can it contradict long-standing, established Biblical
and
> theological practice. In that case, it would be a Robber Council.
In the case of the 7th Council, the Iconoclasts, over time, simply lost
and died out. Therefore, the Church uses an historical "backward
reckoning" which forces this Council to be true.
Learner
Learner
> KerbyRials wrote:
> > I must agree. I also have found the constantly changing positions
of councils
> > to be a clear evidence that the infallibility of councils is a
doctrine without
> > foundation.
The fallibility of Councils was shown in the Bible, in the case of the
Council of Jerusalem - whose decisions were reversed by Paul.
> Well, then you've got some questions to answer. Your Assemblies of
God
> denomination believes in the doctrine of the Trinity, but this was
given
> to you by the first two Ecumenical Councils, which built upon the
> writings of several Church Fathers. This doctrine states that there
is
> one Being made up of three distinct persons. This explanation of the
> Godhead is nowhere in Scripture. Yet, you accept it... on what
basis?
> Because the Orthodox Church held Councils and told you so.
There are a couple of issues here.
First, the "Orthodox" and "Roman Catholic" Churches did not exist at
this point in history, so it is anachronistic to use this term.
Second, the Triune nature of God is totally Biblical [even in the OT]
and documents which long pre-date the Ecumenical Councils [ie our
friend the Didache] mention the Triune nature of God.
> Then your canon of NT books was compiled by conciliar decision. To
say
> the Bible is the infallible Word of God but the means of deciding
this
> was fallible (i.e. Church Council) is logically impossible. If you
say,
> "Well, the council just recognized what was already true," this again
is
> illogical because for the statement to be correct, you must have
another
> infallible standard to measure against, a source telling you which
books
> are infallible and which aren't. Clearly, Scripture doesn't provide
> such a list, nor do most of the books self-reference themselves as
> written by God. If you say God told you personally, I'd like to
receive
> a copy of the audio recording, please.
First of all, it was a Synod [of Carthage] and not a Council which
created a Canon of Scripture. As mentioned earlier, the Council of
Jerusalem - which, unlike latter Councils, was a true Apostolic Council
- made significant errors which Paul had to correct. There is no
Biblical, and certainly no historical, reason to believe that any
Council was infallible.
As for the Synod of Carthage, the participants used historical and
textual analysis similar to what modern students of history employ
today.
The criteria that they used were the apostolicity of the text, the
antiquity of the text, the historical authenticity of the text, the
ubiquity of the text and the catholicity of the text. The participants
agreed/debated opinions based on these factors.
There was no record of any supernatural event or Divine revelation at
this Synod.
> > For instance, the six councils on Hesychasm -- four were for it,
two were
> > against. And the councils on icons -- three against, two for (794,
754 and
> > 820(?) against, and 787 and 830 (?) for).
> There are local councils, then there are Ecumenical Councils, then
there
> are Robber Councils. You can't have a council that contradicts
previous
> councils nor can it contradict long-standing, established Biblical
and
> theological practice. In that case, it would be a Robber Council.
In the case of the 7th Council, the Iconoclasts, over time, simply lost
Stephen M. Adams
Because "canons" are guidelines, not rules. Orthodoxy doesn't have the
concept of "Canon Law" the same way the Romans do. Our Bishops are
expected to read the canons and apply them to the situation at hand
based on the over-riding principles of love and what's best for the
soul of the individual at hand.
For Orthodox, the Canons are not like English Common Law, where every
decision is based on previous decisions and one only overturns settled
laws on rare occasions or when circumstances change markedly for the
population as a whole.
Each and every case is to be decided based on the principles I noted
above.
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>Kerby,
>>
>>Stephen, I and others adequately explained to you that no one was
>
> ever
>
>>anathemized. If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to
>
> produce
>
>>the evidence. The Church maintained no tradition of anathemizing
>
> those
>
>>who didn't venerate icons.
>
>
> That is not entirely true. Anathemas were pronounced against a number
> of Iconoclasts - mainly the leaders of this movement, who were also
> excommunicated.
You again demonstrate a profound inability to read what's written and
respond to what's written. Profoundly amazing, I must say. It's really
a matter of not being able to think and write in a logically correct
manner. Read carefully, AGAIN, Lerner... The Church maintained no
tradition of anathemizing those who didn't venerate icons. It did
anathemize those who rejected icons, thusly called Iconoclasts, and many
of these folks were extremely violent. Think harder next time.
[snip ramblings]
> However if grace is transmitted through the Sacraments of the Church,
> then to be outside of the Church is the same as being not receiving
> God's grace - which would effectively condemn and person to Hell.
> Learner
>
Wrong again, but hey, what else is new?
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>KerbyRials wrote:
>
>
>>>I must agree. I also have found the constantly changing positions
>
> of councils
>
>>>to be a clear evidence that the infallibility of councils is a
>
> doctrine without
>
>>>foundation.
>
>
> The fallibility of Councils was shown in the Bible, in the case of the
> Council of Jerusalem - whose decisions were reversed by Paul.
And you once again demonstrate to all that you don't understand Orthodox
theology. Read carefully, AGAIN, Lerner. The doctrinal definitions of
an Ecumenical Council are infallible. Not every council is infallible.
Those decisions from local Councils or from individual bishops can and
have been subject to error. Nice try, but your amateur troll games are
getting old. You try to redefine an Orthodox doctrine so you can beat
down a strawman, then when you're exposed for it, pretend otherwise and
try it again a few weeks later.
>>Well, then you've got some questions to answer. Your Assemblies of
>
> God
>
>>denomination believes in the doctrine of the Trinity, but this was
>
> given
>
>>to you by the first two Ecumenical Councils, which built upon the
>>writings of several Church Fathers. This doctrine states that there
>
> is
>
>>one Being made up of three distinct persons. This explanation of the
>
>
>>Godhead is nowhere in Scripture. Yet, you accept it... on what
>
> basis?
>
>>Because the Orthodox Church held Councils and told you so.
>
>
> There are a couple of issues here.
>
> First, the "Orthodox" and "Roman Catholic" Churches did not exist at
> this point in history, so it is anachronistic to use this term.
LOL. Still using that fallacy, eh?
> Second, the Triune nature of God is totally Biblical [even in the OT]
> and documents which long pre-date the Ecumenical Councils [ie our
> friend the Didache] mention the Triune nature of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture. If you are going to
say otherwise, then paste the passages. This is another of your
well-know troll maneuvers of saying the Bible or another document says
something, when in fact they do not. Scripture says nowhere that the
Godhead is one being composed of three distince "persons" who are
equally God. The Word says nothing more than the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Period. No Trinitarian theology, Stevie. As a matter of fact,
many of your fundie, Bible-only co-religionists have noticed this
missing theology in Scripture and have concluded the Son and Holy Spirit
are not God. You're not going to be able to refute them through Bible
alone.
And back to the Didache harangue again, huh? How many in your New Age
church fast before baptism? How many fast on certain days of every
week? Where are your bishops? These are all in the Didache. As far as
the Trinity is concerned... it ain't there! It only says to baptise in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No Trinitarian doctrine
there explaining the personhood of these three separate entities or how
they relate to one another. You pulled this game before and I guess
you're lookin' for another spankin'. You want to continue saying it
does? Then paste the section where it talks about the Trinity.
>>Then your canon of NT books was compiled by conciliar decision. To
>
> say
>
>>the Bible is the infallible Word of God but the means of deciding
>
> this
>
>>was fallible (i.e. Church Council) is logically impossible. If you
>
> say,
>
>>"Well, the council just recognized what was already true," this again
>
> is
>
>>illogical because for the statement to be correct, you must have
>
> another
>
>>infallible standard to measure against, a source telling you which
>
> books
>
>>are infallible and which aren't. Clearly, Scripture doesn't provide
>>such a list, nor do most of the books self-reference themselves as
>>written by God. If you say God told you personally, I'd like to
>
> receive
>
>>a copy of the audio recording, please.
>
>
> First of all, it was a Synod [of Carthage] and not a Council which
> created a Canon of Scripture. As mentioned earlier, the Council of
> Jerusalem - which, unlike latter Councils, was a true Apostolic Council
> - made significant errors which Paul had to correct. There is no
> Biblical, and certainly no historical, reason to believe that any
> Council was infallible.
Lerner, the Synod was a local Council. The very word "synod" is
synonomous with "council." Amazing. This is the very reason many on
this list have questioned whether you were ever really Orthodox, when on
some really basic topics you get it flat wrong. And you continue to
dodge the issue at hand. A fallible group of people can't compile an
infallible document. You fail basic logic.
Furthermore, the council was held in 397 A.D.! Now, where oh where did
these imaginary Bible-only Protestants of yours derive Christian truth
for nearly four hundred years? The Apostles were long, long dead, so
that explanation doesn't wash.
> As for the Synod of Carthage, the participants used historical and
> textual analysis similar to what modern students of history employ
> today.
>
> The criteria that they used were the apostolicity of the text, the
> antiquity of the text, the historical authenticity of the text, the
> ubiquity of the text and the catholicity of the text. The participants
> agreed/debated opinions based on these factors.
You've burned yourself without even realizing it. These criteria
were/are applied by the Church in determining not just the canon, but
including our basic teachings. You don't apply this to any of your
newly adopted dogmas. Sola scriptura? It fails the apostolicity,
antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and catholicity tests.
Rapture theology? It fails the apostolicity, antiquity, historical
authenticity, ubiquity, and catholicity tests. Belief without works
salvation? It fails the apostolicity, antiquity, historical
authenticity, ubiquity, and catholicity tests. Once saved, always
saved? It fails the apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity,
ubiquity, and catholicity tests. Rejection of the visible Church? It
fails the apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity,
and catholicity tests. Eucharist as symbol only theology? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Denial of apostolic succession? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Minimalist art and architecture? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Rejection of the Apocrypha? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Rejection of icons and other religious art and
architecture? It fails the apostolicity, antiquity, historical
authenticity, ubiquity, and catholicity tests. Rejection of baptism as
necessary for salvation? It fails the apostolicity, antiquity,
historical authenticity, ubiquity, and catholicity tests. And on and on...
> There was no record of any supernatural event or Divine revelation at
> this Synod.
Which again you undermine your own belief in the infallibility in the NT
canon they gave you. You can't hammer out an infallible list through a
fallible group of people, unless you introduce the Holy Spirit into the mix.
I ask you again, though you repeatedly pretend you weren't asked. Tell
us which exact books, OT and NT, are the inspired Word of God and how
you determined this. You evade the issue because it pulls the carpet
out from under the house of cards called Sola Scriptura. It's the
burden of someone who believes that Bible Alone is the sole standard of
Christian truth to then properly define the Bible, and the method used
for defining it. You simply can't do it.
>>>For instance, the six councils on Hesychasm -- four were for it,
>
> two were
>
>>>against. And the councils on icons -- three against, two for (794,
>
> 754 and
>
>>>820(?) against, and 787 and 830 (?) for).
>
>
>>There are local councils, then there are Ecumenical Councils, then
>
> there
>
>>are Robber Councils. You can't have a council that contradicts
>
> previous
>
>>councils nor can it contradict long-standing, established Biblical
>
> and
>
>>theological practice. In that case, it would be a Robber Council.
>
>
> In the case of the 7th Council, the Iconoclasts, over time, simply lost
> and died out. Therefore, the Church uses an historical "backward
> reckoning" which forces this Council to be true.
>
> Learner
No, Iconclasm was an innovation that, when a few in power adopted it,
exercised it violently to destroy what had been an established practice
in the Church, built upon a proper understanding of the Incarnation, for
many centuries. Iconoclasm was a temporary fad, with no basis in
Christian history, that died out, and then was resurrected by fundie
evangelicals recently who don't know history. Not surprising since, if
it's a heresy, they'll embrace it with charismaniac joy.
AGGreen
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105039372.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
knows he's a hate-mongering heretical troll!
"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:L6lDd.172214$ye4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Learner
Joe 'anathemizing' Orthodox wrote:
> You again demonstrate a profound inability to read what's written and
> respond to what's written.
And you again demonstrate your belligerence and ignorance.
> Profoundly amazing, I must say. It's really
> a matter of not being able to think and write in a logically correct
> manner. Read carefully, AGAIN, Lerner... The Church maintained no
> tradition of anathemizing those who didn't venerate icons.
I think that the idea of anathema is at the root of your confusion. A
Priest does not have to publically announce an anathema, or post it in
the bulletin. If someone rejects icons [as I do], then they are
automatically anathemized according to the 7th Ecumenical Council.
If this person confesses his objections to icons to his Priest [as I
did] he would be told to abstain from receiving Communion until the
time that he reconciles himself to the teachings of the Church [which I
never did].
Ask your Priest what he would do under a similiar circumstance and get
back with us.
> It did
> anathemize those who rejected icons, thusly called Iconoclasts, and
many
> of these folks were extremely violent. Think harder next time.
That is what I said:
> > That is not entirely true. Anathemas were pronounced against a
number
> > of Iconoclasts - mainly the leaders of this movement, who were also
> > excommunicated.
> [snip ramblings]
For which you have no intelligent answer.
> > However if grace is transmitted through the Sacraments of the
Church,
> > then to be outside of the Church is the same as being not receiving
> > God's grace - which would effectively condemn and person to Hell.
> Wrong again, but hey, what else is new?
What is wrong?
1. Is grace transmitted through the Sacraments of the Church? That is
what the Church teaches.
2. Is there grace, and therefore salvation, outside of the Orthodox
Church and its' Sacraments?
I think that you stumbled on this one Joey, but Merry Christmas!
Learner
Learner
Joe Orthodox wrote:
> > The fallibility of Councils was shown in the Bible, in the case of
the
> > Council of Jerusalem - whose decisions were reversed by Paul.
>
> And you once again demonstrate to all that you don't understand
Orthodox
> theology. Read carefully, AGAIN, Lerner. The doctrinal definitions
of
> an Ecumenical Council are infallible. Not every council is
infallible.
Pure nonsense. The Council of Jerusalem was the only true Apostolic
Council since it was held by the Apostles themselves. This Councial,
according to Acts 15:29 prohibited Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed
to Pagan idols. But, Paul had to countermand the Council's decree in 1
Corinthians 8:7-8.
So, if a true Apostolic Council could commit errors, what about those
held centuries after the Apostolic era? Let's look at some
history.....
The councils of Nicaea and Sardica assumed there was only one
hypostasis of the Godhead while the First Council of Constantinople and
the Council of Chalcedon assumed there were three.
Chalcedon in 451 rejected the decisions of the Second Council of
Ephesus of 449.
Constantinople in 754 rejected the veneration of images, which the
Second Council of Nicaea in 787 approved.
Chalcedon in 451 specifically amended the decision of the First Council
of Ephesus in 431 [which had condemned Nestorianism]and recognized the
claims of Antioch theology [Nestorius' view] and specifically rejected
the central doctrine of Alexandrine christology [Cyril's view] which
had dominated the two councils of Ephesus.
Therefore, the Patriarch Nestorius, who was condemned in 431 and 449,
would have been able to subscribe completely to the formulation of
faith laid down at Chalcedon in 451, to which Cyril, the leading spirit
at Ephesus I, could have subscribed only with open or secret
reservations, and to which Dioscorus, the leading spirit at Ephesus II
could not have subscribed at all.
How can you possibly claim that your Councils were infallible?
> Those decisions from local Councils or from individual bishops can
and
> have been subject to error. Nice try, but your amateur troll games
are
> getting old. You try to redefine an Orthodox doctrine so you can
beat
> down a strawman, then when you're exposed for it, pretend otherwise
and
> try it again a few weeks later.
So can the decisions of Church Councils.
> > First, the "Orthodox" and "Roman Catholic" Churches did not exist
at
> > this point in history, so it is anachronistic to use this term.
> LOL. Still using that fallacy, eh?
It's not a fallacy. Even Alfred said that these terms came after the
Schism of 1054. The Roman Catholic Church can make the same claims as
the Orthodox.
> > Second, the Triune nature of God is totally Biblical [even in the
OT]
> > and documents which long pre-date the Ecumenical Councils [ie our
> > friend the Didache] mention the Triune nature of God.
> The doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture.
Read what I wrote Joey. I said that the Triune nature of God is
totally Biblical - note the word Triune which is not Trinity.
The Father is called God Phil. 1:2, the Son is called God John 1:1,14;
Col. 2:9, and the Holy Spirit is called God Acts 5:3-4
> And back to the Didache harangue again, huh? How many in your New
Age
> church fast before baptism? How many fast on certain days of every
> week? Where are your bishops? These are all in the Didache. As far
as
> the Trinity is concerned... it ain't there! It only says to baptise
in
> the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No Trinitarian
doctrine
> there explaining the personhood of these three separate entities or
how
> they relate to one another. You pulled this game before and I guess
> you're lookin' for another spankin'. You want to continue saying it
> does? Then paste the section where it talks about the Trinity.
Once again, I said Triune - please read what I wrote before you proceed
to make an ass of yourself.
> Lerner, the Synod was a local Council. The very word "synod" is
> synonomous with "council."
No kidding. But, once again you miss the point. Earlier, you said that
only Ecumenical Councils were infallible. The Synod of Carthage was
not an Ecumenical Council. Therefore, how do we know that their
decisions were correct?
> Amazing. This is the very reason many on
> this list have questioned whether you were ever really Orthodox, when
on
> some really basic topics you get it flat wrong.
I gotten far fewer things wrong than you!
> And you continue to
> dodge the issue at hand. A fallible group of people can't compile an
> infallible document. You fail basic logic.
I hate to tell you this Joey....the Bible is not an infallible
document. There are a number of errors in the text.
> Furthermore, the council was held in 397 A.D.! Now, where oh where
did
> these imaginary Bible-only Protestants of yours derive Christian
truth
> for nearly four hundred years? The Apostles were long, long dead, so
> that explanation doesn't wash.
So, are you saying that this Council wrote the books of the Bible?
The Synod of Carthage "collected" A Canon of Scripture, not THE Canon
of Scripture. The Canon given to us by the Orthodox Church is one of
many that exists today/existed centuries ago.
There were a wide variety of competing Canons of Scripture both before
and after the Council of Carthage in (397 A.D.), including (to name but
a few): The Muratorian Canon, The Canon of Origen (A.D. 185-254), The
Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265-340), The Canon of Cyril Of
Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350), The Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360), The Canon
Approved By The Synod Of Laodicea (c. A.D. 363 - and this was lost),
The Canon Of Athanasius (A.D. 367) , The Canon Approved By The
'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D. 380), The Canon Of Gregory of Nazianzus
(A.D. 329-89), The Canon Of Amphilochius of Iconium (d. 394), and
finally, The Canon Approved By The Third Synod Of Carthage (A.D. 397).
> > As for the Synod of Carthage, the participants used historical and
> > textual analysis similar to what modern students of history employ
> > today.
> > The criteria that they used were the apostolicity of the text, the
> > antiquity of the text, the historical authenticity of the text, the
> > ubiquity of the text and the catholicity of the text. The
participants
> > agreed/debated opinions based on these factors.
>
> You've burned yourself without even realizing it. These criteria
> were/are applied by the Church in determining not just the canon, but
> including our basic teachings.
No, the Church evolved under political and pagan pressure, and then
looked back into history to attempt to find, or create, "traditions" to
justify its beliefs.
> You don't apply this to any of your newly adopted dogmas.
> Sola scriptura?
Paul said that the Bible is sufficient [2 Tim 3:16], he didn't tell us
that we needed Church Councials, Church Fathers, or canon law.
> Rapture theology?
First of all, the early Christians believed that Christ would return in
their lifetime, and they were wrong.
Hermas taught that believers would escape the future great tribulation
period (Hermas, Shepherd of Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2), and
Irenaeus, wrote:
"And therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up
from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been
since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of
the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with
incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 29).
> Belief without works salvation?
> Once saved, always saved?
Jesus taught it. In fact, He said those with eternal life will NEVER
PERISH. John 10:28, "and I give eternal life to them, and they shall
never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand." So Joey,
will they perish or not?
> Rejection of the visible Church?
The visible church is made up of all who claim the name of Christian.
It doesn't mean that only one denomination is the Church, or that all
in it are saved.
> Eucharist as symbol only theology?
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11 that communion is a rememberance, not
an literal re-enactment of Jesus' death. According to the Didache, the
first century Church also believed it to be symbolic.
> Denial of apostolic succession?
Found nowhere in the Bible. Whom did the Apostles name as their direct
successors according to recorded history?
> Minimalist art and architecture?
That was what the early Church had! Even Orthodox scholars admit this.
> Rejection of the Apocrypha?
It was rejected by the early Church.
Aquila's Greek Canon (128 A.D.) did not contain the Apocrypha, nor did
Symmachus' Canon (200 A.D.). Tertulian of Carthage (140-220 A.D.),
Hilary of Poitiers (305-366 A.D.), Ruffinus of Aquileia (410 A.D.), and
Jerome (340- 420 A.D.) did not accept the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha
was added to the Latin Vulgate in 460, but only over Jerome's
objections.
Also, the Syriac Church waited until the fourth century A.D. to accept
the Apocrypha as canonical. The Peshitta, the Syriac Bible of the
second century AD did not contain the Apocrypha.
> Rejection of icons and other religious art and architecture?
Icons did not exist in the early Church.
> Rejection of baptism as necessary for salvation?
Then you disagree with Paul?
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you,
which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this
gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on
to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures." [1 Cor. 15:1-4]
Paul does not mention baptism here.
> I ask you again, though you repeatedly pretend you weren't asked.
Tell
> us which exact books, OT and NT, are the inspired Word of God and how
> you determined this. You evade the issue because it pulls the carpet
> out from under the house of cards called Sola Scriptura. It's the
> burden of someone who believes that Bible Alone is the sole standard
of
> Christian truth to then properly define the Bible, and the method
used
> for defining it. You simply can't do it.
I don't evade anything. From an Orthodox view, I don't know what books
really belong in the Bible since various Orthodox groups have different
Canons of Scripture. Why is that Joey?
> No, Iconclasm was an innovation that, when a few in power adopted it,
> exercised it violently to destroy what had been an established
practice
> in the Church, built upon a proper understanding of the Incarnation,
for
> many centuries. Iconoclasm was a temporary fad, with no basis in
> Christian history, that died out, and then was resurrected by fundie
> evangelicals recently who don't know history. Not surprising since,
if
> it's a heresy, they'll embrace it with charismaniac joy.
The 7th Ecumenical Council contradicted earliers Councils and presents
a heretical Christology.
You have dodged this question before. If you argue that the
Incarnation legitimizes the production and veneration of icons - in
spite of the OT prohibition - you must assume one of two things:
God's nature changed when Jesus became a man since God is now
"depictable". [Nestorianism]
Or, perhaps you could say that God became "depictable" as a man,
however, God remained "undepictable" as God. [Monophysitism]
Which is it?
This is one reason that many people opposed the 7th Ecumenical Council.
One simply cannot defend icons based on this argument with resorting
to either Nestorianism or Monophysitism.
Learner
AGGreen
beatnik flower child cult be a "he"?
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105109153....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
this the teachings of your Calvary Chapel cult?
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105039372.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Learner
Telling the truth about Orthodoxy is my burden.
Learner
Learner
AGGreen wrote:
> ***You are confused...Learner. Could that Jezebel who led you astray
to the
> beatnik flower child cult be a "he"?
Learner
AGGreen
***Ah, the Calvary Chapel cult looks the other way in matters involving
pre-marital sex! What a religion! You are such a great ambassador for your
adopted religion, heretic!
AGGreen
***Calvary Chapel teaches its members to castigate and belittle other
people's religion. It's about time your hippie chapel cult is exposed!
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105118084.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Stephen M. Adams
>
>I think that the idea of anathema is at the root of your confusion. A
>Priest does not have to publically announce an anathema, or post it in
>the bulletin. If someone rejects icons [as I do], then they are
>automatically anathemized according to the 7th Ecumenical Council.
There is no such thing as an "automatic" anathema - the council
is instructing Bishops to anathemize those who are iconoclasts,
whether they be priests, deacons or lay persons.
In the case of a bishop, the council is instructing the local synod
of bishops to anathemize iconoclasts.
>If this person confesses his objections to icons to his Priest [as I
>did] he would be told to abstain from receiving Communion until the
>time that he reconciles himself to the teachings of the Church [which I
>never did].
This would be *excommunication* NOT *anathemization* - who taught you
your Orthodox theolgoy????
>Ask your Priest what he would do under a similiar circumstance and get
>back with us.
Uhm, in my case? Report it to my bishop, I would be asked why my position
on icons was, and if I was not in line with the 7th Council, I would be
immediately laicized (I'm a subdeacon), and excommunicated (ie told to
refrain from communion), and if I publicly taught Iconoclasm, I would
be anathemized - that is, be asked to leave and not return at all until
such time as I had reconciled with the Church.
For a lay person, it would not likely go the Bishop *unless* the person
was trying to spread his Iconoclasm. If he was, then it would go to
the bishop, and the result would be similar to the one for me.
But it's NOT (and never has been) "automatic" in the way you appear
to mean.
>1. Is grace transmitted through the Sacraments of the Church? That is
>what the Church teaches.
First of all, the church does not have 7 (or 6, or 8) dogmatically
defined Sacraments. God's grace comes to us in whatever way he choses
to give it to us. Yes, through the sacraments, but also through
prayer, veneration of icons, fasting, etc, etc, etc.
>2. Is there grace, and therefore salvation, outside of the Orthodox
>Church and its' Sacraments?
There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. The Church *is* the
body of Christ, thus, there is no salvation outside of the church.
BUT, this does not mean that non-Orthodox cannot be saved. That is
for God alone to decide. It's none of my business how God choses
to operate. BUT, since I know of the Church, and I know her teachings,
I would place myself in grave danger by abbandoning the truth.
AGGreen
posts, the more ignorant he becomes. It's obvious he's not learning
anything!!
"Stephen M. Adams" <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:crmu4...@news1.newsguy.com...
AGGreen
of the anti-cult group known as the Christian Research Institute. Some gang
you've hooked up with. I'll bet you're a part of the Set-Free Calvary Chapel
movement...a mind control group...
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105122211.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Stephen M. Adams
>No Alfred, few people in CC know or care about the Orthodox Church.
>Telling the truth about Orthodoxy is my burden.
To tell it you have to know it. And you've shown by your posts that
you DON'T know it.
KerbyRials
You mentioned that the canon of scripture was given to Christianity by a church
council. I would have to disagree. The council only confirmed the practice of
the churches, which had been using the New Testament scriptures for more than
300 years already. The council’s decision was quite late, accordingly, and
helped only by adding its authority to the common practice of the churches. In
the first century, the Apostle Peter already considered Paul’s letters to be
scripture, as he wrote in 2 Peter 3:15-16, “...Our dear brother Paul also
wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him....His letters contain some things
that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as
they do the other Scriptures...” In addition, citations of almost all the
New Testament books have been found in writings from the first and second
century church fathers, who treated them as scripture (70-120 A.D.), according
to Unger’s Bible Dictionary (page 177-178).
Third, no single denomination can claim authorship of the Bible. The Orthodox
church and Catholic churches were not fully developed into the churches that we
know today until they approved icons, relics and prayer to saints in 787 A.D.,
and split from each other in 1054 A.D.
As to the trinity, it is easily seen in scripture. WHen Jesus was baptized,
the father spoke from heaven, Jesus was on the earth, and the Holy Spirit was
descending to him. Three in one. Matt. 28:19 -- Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It
is not that hard. The councils only confirmed the wisdom the Holy Spirit had
already given the people.
KerbyRials
The infallible standard you are seeking is the Holy Spirit and the word of God.
The church is not infallible, nor is any council. There are enough examples
of error in both I don't think we need to say it. Error comes in when the
infallible Holy Spirit and the infallible word of God are interpreted by
fallible and sinful human beings. There is no safety from error in a church
council or in the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant churches. The only real
safety is in a pure heart that is seeking to hear from God whatever the cost.
Such a person will know the truth and it will set him free, praise God for
that. Depending on a human institution for guidance is an error that Jesus
warned us against when he said to make no man your spiritual father, spiritual
master or spiritual teacher. God is our master, father and teacher, and praise
the Lord we have direct access to Him thorugh the blood of Jesus.
God bless,
Kerby
KerbyRials
mention, but I will go ahead and say that the 787 council contradicted the
previous 754 council on icons. You said a council can't contradict a previous
council. History shows otherwise. It is a contradiction. The second council
on icons came 34 years after the first. Both had equal numbers of bishops; both
were convened by the emperor (as were all of the seven councils) etc. And they
contradicted each other. The second council was not accepted by much of the
west (Charlemagne's empire), and only two papal legates attended from the west.
Hardly an ecumenical council. It is still not accepted today by Protestants,
and as we already said, it is fallible in that it states that non-veneration of
icons will send one to hell -- an anathema that no one I know of accepts today
-- a mute acceptance of the fallibility of that council.
Kerby
Joe Orthodox
range to see the buffalo and there was no way I could ever get close
enough to "check" whether one was a she or a he.
Anyway, don't worry about it, Al. He's already been saved. He can sin
at will without fear of God's punishment. In his own mind, at least.
AGGreen
> Dear Joe,
> You mentioned that the canon of scripture was given to Christianity by a
church
> council. I would have to disagree. The council only confirmed the practice
of
> the churches, which had been using the New Testament scriptures for more
than
> 300 years already.
***There were hundreds of epistles, or letters, and dozens of gospels in
circulation among the churches for the first 375 years. No church had all
the texts and problems arose over local teachings based on differing sets of
texts. The council met in 375 to determine which documents in circulation
would be used by ALL churches so that teachijngs based on Scripture would be
relatively equal. Some of the gospels in circulation in the early years
include:
-- The Signs Gospel is a source for most of the narrative in the Gospel of
John, and may well be the earliest written account of the deeds of Jesus. Q
is a source for much of the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke, and it witnesses to a very early stage of theological reflection in
the Jesus tradition.
-- The Gospel of Thomas has core elements as old as the synoptic gospels
which have proven a valuable source for the teachings of the historical
Jesus; while in its later layer, Thomas is the record of a Christian
community creatively accommodating influences from Gnosticism.
-- The Secret Book of James and the Dialogue of the Savior show the
modulation in the form of the sayings gospel from the simple collection of
sayings we see in Thomas to their composition into extended discourses and
dialogues, a development in the use and interpretation of Jesus' sayings
that is paralleled in the Gospel of John.
-- The Gospel of Mary is an historical window into the interpretation of the
teaching of Jesus from the perspectives of Gnosticism and into the heated
debate among early Christians about the role of women in the churches.
-- The Infancy Gospels of Thomas and James testify to the popular, if
theologically unsophisticated, interest among early Christians in
elaborating and embellishing the edifying biographical circumstances of
Jesus' birth, childhood, and family background.
-- The Gospel of Peter, in the partial form in which we have it, is an early
passion gospel with important differences from the other passion narratives.
It may contain, in an embedded source document, the primary material for the
passion and resurrection stories in the canonical gospels.
-- The Secret Gospel of Mark consists of excerpts from a variant edition of
the Gospel of Mark, and may represent an earlier version of Mark than the
one in the New Testament.
-- The Gospels of the Hebrews, Nazoreans, and Ebionites represent
distinctive ways in which Jewish Christians interpreted the Jesus tradition.
***The epistles and other writings that were in circulation in the early
years are too numerous to list here.
Al
The council's decision was quite late, accordingly, and
> helped only by adding its authority to the common practice of the
churches. In
> the first century, the Apostle Peter already considered Paul's letters to
be
> scripture, as he wrote in 2 Peter 3:15-16, "...Our dear brother Paul also
> wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him....His letters contain some
things
> that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,
as
> they do the other Scriptures..." In addition, citations of almost all the
> New Testament books have been found in writings from the first and second
> century church fathers, who treated them as scripture (70-120 A.D.),
according
> to Unger's Bible Dictionary (page 177-178).
> Third, no single denomination can claim authorship of the Bible.
***The Canon of the New Testament was determined in council by
representatives of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...the Church
founded by Christ at Pentecost. This NT canon is most likely used by most of
the 33,000+ protestant denominations in the world today.
The Orthodox
> church and Catholic churches were not fully developed into the churches
that we
> know today until they approved icons, relics and prayer to saints in 787
A.D.,
> and split from each other in 1054 A.D.
***Technically speaking, you are correct. Yet today, the Orthodox Church is
the only vestige of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church holding
inviolate to its teachings.
Al
AGGreen
> Dear Joe,
> The infallible standard you are seeking is the Holy Spirit and the word of
God.
> The church is not infallible, nor is any council.
***The Church is the Body of Christ (if one is to believe scripture). If the
Church is not infallible then Christ God is not infallible. (I'm not willing
to make that statement, are you?)
There are enough examples
> of error in both I don't think we need to say it. Error comes in when the
> infallible Holy Spirit and the infallible word of God are interpreted by
> fallible and sinful human beings.
***True, yet the infallible Church worked through these human errors and the
pure, unadulterted, infal;lible truth prevailed!
There is no safety from error in a church
> council or in the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant churches.
***Sure there is. In Orthodoxy, excommunication for teaching error is VERY
real. It happens with some frequency.
The only real
> safety is in a pure heart that is seeking to hear from God whatever the
cost.
> Such a person will know the truth and it will set him free, praise God for
> that. Depending on a human institution for guidance is an error that
Jesus
> warned us against when he said to make no man your spiritual father,
spiritual
> master or spiritual teacher. God is our master, father and teacher, and
praise
> the Lord we have direct access to Him thorugh the blood of Jesus.
>
> God bless,
> Kerby
***Call no man "Father." Orthodoxy addresses this quite convincingly. Read
the following written by a priest:
Call No Man Father
By Fr. Richard Ballew
Several decades have passed since Bing Crosby donned clerical garb and
portrayed on the screen a role which would endear him to many even to this
day-Father O'Malley. Somewhat earlier in our century, one of the great
humanitarians of our time, Father Flanagan, founded Boys Town in Nebraska.
The home became a nationally known refuge for homeless boys. In many ways,
Mother Teresa of India is his contemporary female counterpart in caring for
the poor and downtrodden of her adopted land. But what are we to make of
these titles? We admire the work and character of these people, but does not
the Bible issue the command to call no man "father"? Certain statements made
by Jesus have often been the basis of great controversy, both inside and
outside the Church. His saying, "Do not call anyone on earth your father;
for One is your Father, He who is in heaven,"' has proven to be no
exception.
AT ISSUE IS INTERPRETATION
Some Protestant interpreters are sure that Jesus is warning here against
addressing Church leaders as "father." They, of course, are interpreting
"father" in this Scripture to mean, "spiritual father." Therefore, they
refuse to call their clergymen "father," preferring instead such titles as
"pastor," "reverend," or perhaps even "brother." At the outset, therefore,
let me point out that "spiritual father" is an interpretation of the Lord's
statement rather than what He actually said. Mind you, I am not denying the
need for interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I am pointing out that the
Lord said "father," not "spiritual father." What is at issue here? Simply
this: taken at face value, Jesus' warning against calling any man "father"
would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman "father," it would also
keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and grandfathers, ancient
Church fathers, or even city fathers, would it not? For in reality, the
Lord's statement, as it appears in the text, is that only one Person is ever
to be called "father," namely, our Father who is in heaven. But is Christ's
saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible
are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul
in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, "For if you were to
have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in
Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."2 Does not Paul claim
to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians--"Father Paul," if you please?
Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as "our fathers."3
And he did address earthly fathers in Colosse in this way: "Fathers, do not
provoke your children, lest they become discouraged."4 It would appear the
Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ's words to
mean only One was to be called "father," that is, the heavenly Father. In
addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in
his bosom, and addressed him as "Father Abraham," Abraham's response was
not, "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father'?"
Rather, he replied, "Son, remember..."5 Instances like the above could be
multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged
to be "fathers."
OTHER TITLES
But let us not stop here. For after saying only "One is your Father," Jesus
proceeded to declare, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your
Teacher, the Christ."6 Yet He Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a
"teacher of Israel."7 And in the church at Antioch certain men were called
"prophets and teachers."8 Then again, the Apostle Paul not only recognized
teachers as gifts of God to the Church,9 but he also did not hesitate to
call himself "a teacher of the Gentiles."10 Furthermore, in this present
day, almost all of us have at one time or another called certain people
Sunday School teachers. The discussion thus goes far beyond any
Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in saying we should call no one
"father" and "teacher," except God the Father and Christ Himself, the Lord
Jesus appears not to be taking issue with the use of these particular titles
in and of themselves. The context of the passage gives us the interpretive
key we are looking for. In this "call no man father" passage, our Lord is
contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these specific
titles to accomplish their own ends. And had these same apostate rabbis been
using other titles, such as "reverend" and "pastor," Jesus, it seems to me,
would have said of these as well, "Call no one reverend or pastor."
WHAT DID THE RABBIS MEAN?
To what ends, therefore, were the rabbis using the titles "father" and
"teacher"? The answer revolves around at least two critical areas of
leadership: teaching and personal character. Consider first the teaching of
these particular rabbis. They had begun their teaching at the right place,
the Law of Moses. Said Jesus, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat."11 Moses' Law was the true tradition. God had given it to Israel
through Moses. The rabbis' responsibility was to preserve that tradition and
faithfully pass it on to the next generation. All too often, however, a
rabbi would add his own grain of wisdom to the true tradition, thereby
clouding it. Instead of passing down the sacred deposit along with the true
interpretations of that deposit, he would add his own private
interpretation. In turn his disciples, like their teacher, would, after
becoming rabbis, do the same thing. (Some things never change, do they!) The
final outcome of all this was a tradition of men that made the true Mosaic
tradition of no effect. To these very rabbis Jesus said, "For laying aside
the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men,"12 and again, "All
too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition
. . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you
have handed down."13 The summation of their private interpretations did in
fact "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men."14
JESUS' CASE FOR TRUE TRADITION
In order to cut through all this tradition of men that had made the Mosaic
tradition of no effect, and to bring people back to the truth, Jesus told
His disciples, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi.'"15 In other words, He was
telling them not to use their positions as fathers and teachers as an
opportunity to build disciples around their own private opinions. For to do
so would only serve to "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men."16
Instead, with the coming of Christ, these rabbis-and indeed all who would
teach God's Word-are to hand down faithfully the true tradition of only one
Rabbi: Christ Himself. The Bible, through the pen of the Apostle John, calls
this particular tradition "the doctrine of Christ."17 In fact, this is why
the specific teaching of the Twelve became known as "the apostles'
doctrine."18 Since their time, successive generations of fathers and
teachers in the Church have handed down and guarded the apostolic doctrine
concerning Christ very carefully, for it represents the true interpretation
of Holy Scripture. This faithfulness to true Christian doctrine, by the way,
can especially be seen in the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, held
between the fourth and eighth centuries. It behooves anyone who claims to be
a teacher of Christ's doctrine to be faithful to the apostles' doctrine
handed down in those Councils. Otherwise he runs the risk of inserting his
own "private interpretation."19 While it is true that all teachers of
Christ's doctrine must begin at the right place, namely, the Holy
Scriptures, it is also true that they should give the correct and true
interpretation of Holy Scripture as passed down by holy and godly teachers
and fathers of the Church, especially in the Seven Councils. Why are the
Seven Ecumenical Councils so important? Because they point out what the
Church universally held to be the true teaching concerning the Person of the
Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. They are faithful to what the Holy
Scriptures teach concerning the one true Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus Christ.
Teachers and fathers who teach private interpretations contrary to the
doctrine of Christ as taught in the Seven Ecumenical Councils should not, I
believe, be recognized as true teachers and fathers.
THE RABBIS AND PERSONAL CHARACTER
A second critical area of rabbinic leadership with which Jesus was concerned
was personal character. He had detected a major flaw in the character of the
scribes and Pharisees, a sin that might be called self-exaltation. They were
using their position as fathers and teachers among God's people to exalt
themselves. They wanted to be sure they received appropriate recognition. In
light of this lack of character, Jesus said, "But he who is greatest among
you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and
he who humbles himself will be exalted."20 Their self-exalting spirit had
manifested itself in several ways. First, in hypocrisy: "for they say," said
Jesus, "and do not do."21 All talk and no walk. Their talk was cheap because
it was totally contradicted by their behavior. In pretense they would make
long prayers, but in behavior devour widows' houses.22 They would make
oaths, swearing by the gold of the temple rather than by the temple that
sanctified the gold, thereby revealing their secret love of money.23
Although they paid tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, which they should have
done gladly, they neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice,
mercy, and faith.24 Because they were hypocrites in these and numerous other
ways, the Lord summed up His critique by saying, "Even so you also outwardly
appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness.25 Plainly, their "insides" did not match their "outsides"
because they were filled up with a self-exalting and self-serving spirit. A
second manifestation of their selfexalting spirit was the noticeable lack of
actual service on their part. "For," said Jesus, "they bind heavy burdens,
hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not
move them with one of their fingers."26 No dirt was to be found under their
fingernails. They were simply a group of lazy leaders who wanted to be
served rather than to serve. No wonder, then, Jesus said not to be like
them, for from God's standpoint, "he who is greatest among you shall be your
servant."27 A third manifestation of their self-exalting spirit was
self-love, demonstrated by a desire to be seen by men,28 by their love for
the best seats at the feasts and in the synagogues,29 and by their love of
greetings in the marketplaces, being called by men, "Rabbi, Rabbi."30 This
self-love was a clear transgression of the Mosaic Law, which they professed
to be keeping. For Moses' entire law could be summed up in the two great
commandments, the greatest of which is, "You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."31 The
second greatest is, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."32 Thus,
these fathers and teachers were not leading their people into the love of
God and neighbor. Quite to the contrary, they were exhibiting a
self-exalting, self-serving spirit, filled up with a love for self.
THE VERDICT OF CHRIST
In the face of the stench and shame of the apostasy of these religious
leaders, therefore, Jesus commanded His disciples, "Do not call anyone on
earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."33 While
Father Abraham by his faithfulness deserved the title, as did others of
Israel's greats in history, these men had forfeited their role as fathers.
They were to cease and desist in their use of the term and, in turn, bow to
God Himself as the fountainhead of all fatherhood. And in issuing His
warning, Jesus addresses us today with the greatest of all commandments,
pointing the fathers and teachers in His Church and those they lead to a
primacy of love for God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and to a love
for one's neighbor.
AND WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
From the beginning of Church history, as was true throughout Israel, those
anointed by God for service were called by certain names: "prophet,"
"teacher" (rabbi in Israel), and "father." In that same spirit, other titles
have emerged, such as "reverend," "pastor," "professor" (teacher), or
"brother" (for some evangelical pastors and Catholic monks). These
designations speak of both warmth and dignity. Just as in our family units
there is one who with love is called "father," so in God's household we have
honored and will continue to honor those who have brought us to the new
birth through our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, what better term for them than
"father"? Jesus warned against calling men "father" or "teacher" in order
that the leadership of His holy nation would remain pure. Whether bishop,
father, teacher, deacon, or pastor, all leaders must remain faithful to the
true doctrine of Christ and manifest a personal character befitting godly
humility, a humility that leads the Church into the love of God the Holy
Trinity and of one's neighbor.
May the Lord have mercy on all of us who lead the flock, regardless of the
title we are given.
FOOTNOTES
(All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the New
King James Version.)
1. Matthew 23:9
2. 1 Corinthians 4:15 (New American Standard Version)
3. 1 Corinthians 10:1
4. Colossians 3:21
5. Luke 16:24, 25
6. Matthew 23:10
7. John 3:10
8. Acts 13:1
9. 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11
10. 2 Timothy 1:11
11. Matthew 23:2
12. Mark 7:8
13. Mark 7:9, 13
14. Matthew 23:13
15. Matthew 23:8
16. Matthew 23:13
17. 2 John 9
18. Acts 2:42
19. 2 Peter 1:20
20. Matthew 23:11, 12
21. Matthew 23:3
22. Matthew 23:14
23. Matthew 23:16, 17
24. Matthew 23:23
25. Matthew 23:28
26. Matthew 23:4
27. Matthew 23:11
28. Matthew 23:5
29. Matthew 23:6
30. Matthew 23:7
31. Matthew 22:37
32. Matthew 22:39
33. Matthew 23:9
Joe Orthodox
again try to deflect your ignorance by shifting the word game to
"Triune." There's no more a Triune theology than a Trinity theology in
Scripture or the Didache. Triune means nothing, unless it refers to the
Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture. If you are
your well-know troll maneuvers of saying the Bible or another document
says something, when in fact they do not. Scripture says nowhere that
the Godhead is one being composed of three distince "persons" who are
equally God. The Word says nothing more than the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Period. No Trinitarian theology, Stevie. As a matter of fact,
many of your fundie, Bible-only co-religionists have noticed this
missing theology in Scripture and have concluded the Son and Holy Spirit
are not God. You're not going to be able to refute them through Bible
alone.
And back to the Didache harangue again, huh? How many in your New Age
church fast before baptism? How many fast on certain days of every
week? Where are your bishops? These are all in the Didache. As far as
the Trinity is concerned... it ain't there! It only says to baptise in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No Trinitarian doctrine
there explaining the personhood of these three separate entities or how
they relate to one another. You pulled this game before and I guess
you're lookin' for another spankin'. You want to continue saying it
does? Then paste the section where it talks about the Trinity.
And your attempts to redefine word meanings and conflate local Council
with Ecumenical Council isn't going to work, either. Read carefully,
AGAIN, Lerner. The doctrinal definitions of an Ecumenical Council are
infallible. Not every council is infallible. Those decisions from
local Councils or from individual bishops can and have been subject to
error. Nice try, but your amateur troll games are getting old. You try
to redefine an Orthodox doctrine so you can beat down a strawman, then
when you're exposed for it, pretend otherwise and try it again a few
weeks later.
Learner wrote:
[snip diversions]
> Read what I wrote Joey. I said that the Triune nature of God is
> totally Biblical - note the word Triune which is not Trinity.
Read what "you" wrote? You're stealing my lines again.
> The Father is called God Phil. 1:2, the Son is called God John 1:1,14;
> Col. 2:9, and the Holy Spirit is called God Acts 5:3-4
That's not Trinitarian theology. It doesn't state the relationships,
the nature of those beings as persons, nor does it say anything about
the Godhead being limited to these three things, nor does it say the Son
and HS are equally divine with the Father. It's not the Trinity, no
matter how much your reading comprehension fails you. Probably the root
of the problem is that you don't even understand the Trinity, period.
> Once again, I said Triune - please read what I wrote before you proceed
> to make an ass of yourself.
I leave that for you to do, along with your increasing hate-filled ad
hominem attacks.
>>Lerner, the Synod was a local Council. The very word "synod" is
>>synonomous with "council."
>
>
> No kidding. But, once again you miss the point.
No, the point is you got your facts wrong and you tried to hide it by
snipping it. Here's what you wrote:
"First of all, it was a Synod [of Carthage] and not a Council which
created a Canon of Scripture."
>>Amazing. This is the very reason many on
>>this list have questioned whether you were ever really Orthodox, when
>
> on
>
>>some really basic topics you get it flat wrong.
>
>
> I gotten far fewer things wrong than you!
>
>
>>And you continue to
>>dodge the issue at hand. A fallible group of people can't compile an
>
>
>>infallible document. You fail basic logic.
>
>
> I hate to tell you this Joey....the Bible is not an infallible
> document. There are a number of errors in the text.
Really? So when did you stop being a Christian? You can be sure I'll
bring this statement of yours up again.
>>Furthermore, the council was held in 397 A.D.! Now, where oh where
>
> did
>
>>these imaginary Bible-only Protestants of yours derive Christian
>
> truth
>
>>for nearly four hundred years? The Apostles were long, long dead, so
>
>
>>that explanation doesn't wash.
>
>
> So, are you saying that this Council wrote the books of the Bible?
Strawman diversion. No one said such a thing.
> The Synod of Carthage "collected" A Canon of Scripture, not THE Canon
> of Scripture. The Canon given to us by the Orthodox Church is one of
> many that exists today/existed centuries ago.
Is it, or is it not the canon YOU use? Tell us, Lerner, stop evading.
What books are in YOUR canon?
> No, the Church evolved under political and pagan pressure, and then
> looked back into history to attempt to find, or create, "traditions" to
> justify its beliefs.
You contradict your own posts in one day, writing statements to the
opposite! As has been noted, you can't put together two consistent
thoughts, other than a consistent hate-filled diatribe against the OC.
> Paul said that the Bible is sufficient [2 Tim 3:16], he didn't tell us
> that we needed Church Councials, Church Fathers, or canon law.
Uh... and what Bible was he referring to, Lerner? His own letters?
Guess what he was referring to... the Septuagint. There was no NT at
the time and it's impossible that the OT was "sufficient" to learn about
Christ and His message. This has been shot down so many times across
the net, and you'd try to raise the dead, bullet-riddled horse
pretending it neighs. Funny.
>>Rapture theology?
>
>
> First of all, the early Christians believed that Christ would return in
> their lifetime, and they were wrong.
>
> Hermas taught that believers would escape the future great tribulation
> period (Hermas, Shepherd of Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2), and
> Irenaeus, wrote:
First of all, it's funny how you write this and presume other people are
going to read something in it that's not there. Your dishonesty does
you no service. Secondly, this isn't Scripture. Now answer the
question... what is your comprehensive list of books in the Bible? Is
this text Scripture, in your view? And don't come back with the lame
evasion, "Father XYZ believes so." I'm asking YOU.
> "And therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up
> from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been
> since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of
> the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with
> incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 29).
It doesn't say ANYTHING about folks being sucked up into the sky by
Jesus, avoiding the tribulation. In fact, it says plainly - WHEN THEY
OVERCOME. You must really believe everyone has such a poor grasp of
plain writings as you do. Your dishonesty does you no service.
It's rather hilarious that you'll reject those things most practiced,
for the longest period of time, with the most solid Patristic and
Biblical support, and yet unquestionably accept the most ridiculous,
illogical, unsupported Biblically, ahistorical crap that's out there.
The truth is that rapture theology was invented by some bloke in the
1800's and you know try to backread it into something when it's not
there. Funny.
[snip attempted evasions, and reminding him the part he tried to ignore]
Sola scriptura? It fails the apostolicity, antiquity, historical
authenticity, ubiquity, and catholicity tests. Rapture theology? It
fails the apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity,
and catholicity tests. Belief without works salvation? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Once saved, always saved? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Rejection of the visible Church? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Eucharist as symbol only theology? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Denial of apostolic succession? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Minimalist art and architecture? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
catholicity tests. Rejection of the Apocrypha? It fails the
apostolicity, antiquity, historical authenticity, ubiquity, and
Joe Orthodox
> Dear Joe,
> You mentioned that the canon of scripture was given to Christianity by a church
> council. I would have to disagree. The council only confirmed the practice of
> the churches, which had been using the New Testament scriptures for more than
> 300 years already. The council’s decision was quite late, accordingly, and
Kerby,
You ought to go argue with Learner who says there were multiple canons.
He's actually correct. But it took the seal of the Church to give you
the canon you hold today, and reject the non-God inspired stuff. There
was no uniform NT anywhere for nearly four hundred years. Also, very
few churches had Bibles. They had to be written by hand on expensive
paper. Literacy was very rare until recent times, making the scribal
effort even more expensive and making it highly unlikely more than a few
could read it. Hence, the function of icons.
> helped only by adding its authority to the common practice of the churches. In
> the first century, the Apostle Peter already considered Paul’s letters to be
> scripture, as he wrote in 2 Peter 3:15-16, “...Our dear brother Paul also
> wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him....His letters contain some things
> that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as
> they do the other Scriptures...” In addition, citations of almost all the
Sorry, but Peter didn't call Paul's letters Scripture in this passage.
Writing with the wisdom that God gives someone hardly makes the writing
Scripture. Many write with the same wisdom today, but you don't add
their books to the Bible.
> New Testament books have been found in writings from the first and second
> century church fathers, who treated them as scripture (70-120 A.D.), according
> to Unger’s Bible Dictionary (page 177-178).
NT books and a definitive canon with the exact books you accept as the
Bible today are different things. Certainly written books were around
in the 1st century, but no one had a definitive list of what constituted
Scripture, and what books were not Scripture. It wasn't a big deal
because that wasn't the standard for the Faith.
> Third, no single denomination can claim authorship of the Bible. The Orthodox
The Orthodox Catholic Church gave you the NT canon you have today. If
you believe otherwise, then please tell us what books are in the NT and
how you decided this outside what we say.
> church and Catholic churches were not fully developed into the churches that we
> know today until they approved icons, relics and prayer to saints in 787 A.D.,
> and split from each other in 1054 A.D.
I'm sorry, but you're offering the canned talking points. The Orthodox
Catholic Church was born at the Pentecost. The Churches you read about
in the Bible - Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc -
still exist today and they are in the Orthodox Church. The Lord's
brother, James, was bishop of the Jerusalem Church, which still stands
today and is Orthodox. Peter started the Antiochian Church, which still
exists today and is Orthodox.
> As to the trinity, it is easily seen in scripture. WHen Jesus was baptized,
> the father spoke from heaven, Jesus was on the earth, and the Holy Spirit was
> descending to him. Three in one. Matt. 28:19 -- Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It
> is not that hard. The councils only confirmed the wisdom the Holy Spirit had
> already given the people.
Sorry, but the Bible does not say three in one, nor the relationship
between the three, nor their equal divinity, nor their individual
personhood.
Joe Orthodox
> Dear Joe,
> The infallible standard you are seeking is the Holy Spirit and the word of God.
> The church is not infallible, nor is any council. There are enough examples
You can't have a fallible group of human beings, gathered in a council,
produced an infallible canon called the Bible. This is logically
impossible. They must have an infallible standard to measure against to
do this (i.e. God telling them vocally), OR the Council of fallible men
must have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Orthodox choose to believe
the latter, and this was believed by all Christians until a few hundred
years ago.
> of error in both I don't think we need to say it. Error comes in when the
> infallible Holy Spirit and the infallible word of God are interpreted by
> fallible and sinful human beings. There is no safety from error in a church
> council or in the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant churches. The only real
> safety is in a pure heart that is seeking to hear from God whatever the cost.
Really? Then how do you get 30,000+ Protestant denominations, all
saying what you wrote in this last sentence, all saying they are
following the "plain, clear" words of the Bible? And yet they teach
radically different things on the important subject... salvation, the
nature and divinity of Christ, His message, etc. It's not credible.
The Orthodox, Catholics, and Oriental Orthodox are in full agreement on
these important doctrines.
> Such a person will know the truth and it will set him free, praise God for
> that. Depending on a human institution for guidance is an error that Jesus
Not true. Christ said the Church is the pillar of truth, and he told
you to obey the Church...
Matthew 18:17 - "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the Church.
But if he refuses even to hear the Church, let him be to you like a
heathen and a tax collector."
Again, those Churches you read about in Scripture, created by the Lord's
Apostles, are all Orthodox Catholic today.
Joe Orthodox
> I know we are belaboring this point, and I doubt that it will help much to
> mention, but I will go ahead and say that the 787 council contradicted the
> previous 754 council on icons. You said a council can't contradict a previous
> council. History shows otherwise. It is a contradiction. The second council
> on icons came 34 years after the first. Both had equal numbers of bishops; both
> were convened by the emperor (as were all of the seven councils) etc. And they
Read carefully what I wrote previously about robber councils...
"There are local councils, then there are Ecumenical Councils, then
there are Robber Councils. You can't have a council that contradicts
previous councils nor can it contradict long-standing, established
Biblical and theological practice. In that case, it would be a Robber
Council."
The Orthodox Church never fully embraced the Iconoclastic council. It
was a Robber Council, refuted by the next two Councils and refuted by
the overwhelming majority of the Church. It was an anomaly from which
the Church removed from itself.
> contradicted each other. The second council was not accepted by much of the
> west (Charlemagne's empire), and only two papal legates attended from the west.
> Hardly an ecumenical council. It is still not accepted today by Protestants,
Not true. It's accepted by Lutherans and Anglicans. Your iconoclasm is
accepted only by a minority of fundamentalists from the Calvinist and
Pentecostal organizations. A joint Lutheran-Orthodox statement in
Helsinki reaffirmed support of the 7th EC on the part of Lutherans:
"The Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787,
which rejected iconoclasm and restored the veneration of icons in the
churches, was not part of the tradition received by the Reformation.
Lutherans, however, rejected the iconoclasm of the 16th century, and
affirmed the distinction between adoration due to the Triune God alone
and all other forms of veneration. Through historical research this
council has become better known. Nevertheless it does not have the same
significance for Lutherans as it does for the Orthodox. Yet, Lutherans
and Orthodox are in agreement that the Second Council of Nicaea confirms
the christological teaching of the earlier councils and in setting forth
the role of images (icons) in the lives of the faithful reaffirms the
reality of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God, when it states:
"The more frequently, Christ, Mary, the mother of God, and the saints
are seen, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for
those who serve as models, and to pay these icons the tribute of
salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full
adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to
the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the
honored and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels
and to other sacred objects" (Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea)."
> and as we already said, it is fallible in that it states that non-veneration of
> icons will send one to hell -- an anathema that no one I know of accepts today
> -- a mute acceptance of the fallibility of that council.
> Kerby
Kerby, it says no such thing. If you want to learn what an "anathema"
is, then at least have the decency to read what Orthodox are writing
rather than what you want to read. An "anathema" does not consign
anyone to hell, nor has it ever been given to someone for not venerating
icons. An "anathema" is issued only by a bishop who's decided that
someone, by name, has broken the applicable Church law. The 7th EC no
more anathemizes someone than the speed limit law convicts you of
speeding. And the OC does not say anyone is going to hell. You can
continue mischaracterizing Orthodox practice and how the 7th EC
implemented its decisions, but it doesn't make your characterization so.
AGGreen
"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:I6IDd.194862$T02.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Leonidas
>
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> > > The fallibility of Councils was shown in the Bible, in the case of
> the
> > > Council of Jerusalem - whose decisions were reversed by Paul.
> >
> > And you once again demonstrate to all that you don't understand
> Orthodox
> > theology. Read carefully, AGAIN, Lerner. The doctrinal definitions
> of
> > an Ecumenical Council are infallible. Not every council is
> infallible.
>
> Pure nonsense. The Council of Jerusalem was the only true Apostolic
> Council since it was held by the Apostles themselves. This Councial,
> according to Acts 15:29 prohibited Gentiles from eating meat sacrificed
> to Pagan idols. But, Paul had to countermand the Council's decree in 1
> Corinthians 8:7-8.
>
> So, if a true Apostolic Council could commit errors, what about those
> held centuries after the Apostolic era? Let's look at some
> history.....
The Council did not commit an error. Rather, it made the radical first step
in what was the Church's eventual break with Judaic tradition. The council
is just an early snapshot of the Church as it moves away from the strictures
of Judaism as more and more gentiles join her. The more pro-gentile
elements eventually pushed the Church to go even further. The Apostolic
Council shows two things: that councils are the instinctive way the Church
has of solving disputes; and that it takes more than one council to solve a
problem.
> The councils of Nicaea and Sardica assumed there was only one
> hypostasis of the Godhead while the First Council of Constantinople and
> the Council of Chalcedon assumed there were three.
Between Nicea and C'ople there was a shift in the way certain terms were
being used. Again, given the monumentality and plain difficulty of the task
at hand, there were councils and countercouncils before the Church settled
on a set of terms that made everybody happy.
> Chalcedon in 451 rejected the decisions of the Second Council of
> Ephesus of 449.
Chalcedon is by its makeup more authoritative than 449, because it has
ecumenical quorum, whereas 449 did not. I'll grant you that Chalcedon was a
mess that needed C'ople 553 to tidy it up, but consensus building can be a
messy business.
> Constantinople in 754 rejected the veneration of images, which the
> Second Council of Nicaea in 787 approved.
Again, 754 (Hieria) is but a local council that is simply outgunned by the
ecumenical makeup of 787. Frankfurt has no ecumenical standing whatsoever.
> Chalcedon in 451 specifically amended the decision of the First Council
> of Ephesus in 431 [which had condemned Nestorianism]and recognized the
> claims of Antioch theology [Nestorius' view] and specifically rejected
> the central doctrine of Alexandrine christology [Cyril's view] which
> had dominated the two councils of Ephesus.
>
> Therefore, the Patriarch Nestorius, who was condemned in 431 and 449,
> would have been able to subscribe completely to the formulation of
> faith laid down at Chalcedon in 451, to which Cyril, the leading spirit
> at Ephesus I, could have subscribed only with open or secret
> reservations, and to which Dioscorus, the leading spirit at Ephesus II
> could not have subscribed at all.
>
> How can you possibly claim that your Councils were infallible?
I am not very fond of claims of "infallibility." It is an alien way of
talking that I believe arose in the Protestant world and washed back onto
RCism (1870), and now is infecting Orthodox circles too. The councils are
what they are: viz. the entire Church's attempt to gather and speak as one.
Words like "infallible" are meaningless.
[del]
> > No, Iconclasm was an innovation that, when a few in power adopted it,
>
> > exercised it violently to destroy what had been an established
> practice
> > in the Church, built upon a proper understanding of the Incarnation,
> for
> > many centuries. Iconoclasm was a temporary fad, with no basis in
> > Christian history, that died out, and then was resurrected by fundie
> > evangelicals recently who don't know history. Not surprising since,
> if
> > it's a heresy, they'll embrace it with charismaniac joy.
>
> The 7th Ecumenical Council contradicted earliers Councils and presents
> a heretical Christology.
>
> You have dodged this question before. If you argue that the
> Incarnation legitimizes the production and veneration of icons - in
> spite of the OT prohibition - you must assume one of two things:
>
> God's nature changed when Jesus became a man since God is now
> "depictable". [Nestorianism]
What has God's nature changing to do with Nestorianism?
> Or, perhaps you could say that God became "depictable" as a man,
> however, God remained "undepictable" as God. [Monophysitism]
And the connection with Monophysitism is?
> Which is it?
I think you have the argument wrong; what you say above makes little sense.
> This is one reason that many people opposed the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The Iconoclast emperor Constantine V tried to put the iconophiles on the
spot by arguing that, because they supposedly depicted only Christ's human
nature, and not his divine, undepictable nature, they were dividing the
natures and were thus Nestorian. Unfortunately, the emperor, like you, his
modern-day devotee, could have done with a course in Christology 101.
> One simply cannot defend icons based on this argument with resorting
> to either Nestorianism or Monophysitism.
These shoddy arguments could just as easily be used against the worship of
Christ. For what do we worship? Christ's human nature, or his divine
nature? The answer? The icons depict the singular hypostasis or person
of the Incarnate Logos, the object of our worship. He is a divine person
who has added human nature to himself. One cannot talk of depicting
unhypostatized nature. It's silly.
> Learner
>
Leonidas
[del]
> > The doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture.
>
> Read what I wrote Joey. I said that the Triune nature of God is
> totally Biblical - note the word Triune which is not Trinity.
>
> The Father is called God Phil. 1:2, the Son is called God John 1:1,14;
> Col. 2:9, and the Holy Spirit is called God Acts 5:3-4
>
> > And back to the Didache harangue again, huh? How many in your New
> Age
> > church fast before baptism? How many fast on certain days of every
> > week? Where are your bishops? These are all in the Didache. As far
> as
> > the Trinity is concerned... it ain't there! It only says to baptise
> in
> > the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No Trinitarian
> doctrine
> > there explaining the personhood of these three separate entities or
> how
> > they relate to one another. You pulled this game before and I guess
> > you're lookin' for another spankin'. You want to continue saying it
> > does? Then paste the section where it talks about the Trinity.
>
> Once again, I said Triune - please read what I wrote before you proceed
> to make an ass of yourself.
And so where is "Triune" in Scripture?
[del]
Joe Orthodox
Before the chapter where Christ says, "Rapture!", which would be just
after the passage where He complains about His wife and three kids in
the Gospel of St. Harangue, a book suppressed by the Church no doubt.
Learner
Joe Orthodox wrote:
> You ought to go argue with Learner who says there were multiple
canons.
There were multiple canons then, and there are multiple canons today -
even between three jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church.
> > helped only by adding its authority to the common practice of the
churches. In
> > the first century, the Apostle Peter already considered Paul's
letters to be
> > scripture, as he wrote in 2 Peter 3:15-16, "...Our dear brother
Paul also
> > wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him....His letters contain
some things
> > that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people
distort, as
> > they do the other Scriptures..." In addition, citations of
almost all the
> Sorry, but Peter didn't call Paul's letters Scripture in this
passage.
> Writing with the wisdom that God gives someone hardly makes the
writing
> Scripture. Many write with the same wisdom today, but you don't add
> their books to the Bible.
And
> The Orthodox Catholic Church gave you the NT canon you have today.
If
> you believe otherwise, then please tell us what books are in the NT
and
> how you decided this outside what we say.
These two comments raise a very interesting issue.
How could the Church create a canon of Scripture by selecting a
collection of books whose authors [at the minimum] believed the other
books inadequate or possibly [in the worse case] believed the other
books to not be inspired?
We know that there was an early period of oral tradition, when many
stories circulated about Jesus and his teachings. Different communities
were formed and many of them understood the meaning of Jesus, and His
teachings, in different ways.
A writer, now known as Mark, selected some of the oral traditions and
put them into "Gospel" form . Mark's account begins with John the
Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, and ends with an empty tomb with a group
of frightened women fleeing and saying nothing to anyone about it to
anyone. There is no virgin birth and miracles are rather sparse.
A few years down the road, two writers [each with his own unique
perspective] created their own revisions of Mark - Matthew and Luke.
Matthew used nearly 90% of Mark, but he added many passages where he
attempted to link, what he believed to be OT prophecy, to events in
Jesus' life [ie the virgin birth]. Luke used Mark even less than
Matthew, using only about 50%. The rest came from other sources - one
of which Matthew also used.
However, it is very obvious that, unlike the Orthodox Church, neither
Matthew nor Luke
considered Mark a divinely-inspired document. It was nothing more than
one source among many. Both cut parts out of it, inserted material from
other sources, and even changed the wording, and its significance in
numerous passages.
Luke, who admits that he was not an eyewitness, also said that many
people had previously written accounts of traditions they believed were
handed down from earlier eyewitnesses concerning Jesus. Luke clearly
did not approve of those earlier accounts, including Mark, otherwise he
would not have written his own Gospel, which alone he describes as
"authentic." Luke simply found Mark's Gospel to be unsatisfactory.
So, how can your Church justify including Mark with Luke and Matthew
when the authors of these two Gospels believed the Gospel of Mark to be
unsatisfactory to the point that they had to essentially re-write it?
> > church and Catholic churches were not fully developed into the
churches that we
> > know today until they approved icons, relics and prayer to saints
in 787 A.D.,
> > and split from each other in 1054 A.D.
> I'm sorry, but you're offering the canned talking points.
Which happen to be true.
> The Orthodox Catholic Church was born at the Pentecost.
That is nothing more that a claim which, by the way, others Churches
also make.
> The Churches you read about
> in the Bible - Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Antioch, Jerusalem,
etc -
> still exist today and they are in the Orthodox Church. The Lord's
> brother, James, was bishop of the Jerusalem Church, which still
stands
> today and is Orthodox. Peter started the Antiochian Church, which
still
> exists today and is Orthodox.
And the land of Egypt, which we read about in the Bible, also exists
today. So what?
I have responded to this cut-and-paste on a number of occasions. As
usual, you have no answers and can find none to cut-and-paste. So, in
the tradition of Orthodoxy, you mindlessly repeat it.
The Church in Corinth recognized the universal authority of the Pope.
In fact, the Church in Corinth considered letters written by Pope
Clement of Rome (90-99), in which he urged, and received, their
submission to his ecclesiastical authority as Scripture!
In other words, the Church in Corinth recognized and obeyed the
universal authority of the Pope, so is it really the same Church as
today?
> > As to the trinity, it is easily seen in scripture. WHen Jesus was
baptized,
> > the father spoke from heaven, Jesus was on the earth, and the Holy
Spirit was
> > descending to him. Three in one. Matt. 28:19 -- Father, Son and
Holy Ghost. It
> > is not that hard. The councils only confirmed the wisdom the Holy
Spirit had
> > already given the people.
> Sorry, but the Bible does not say three in one, nor the relationship
> between the three, nor their equal divinity, nor their individual
> personhood.
So are you now saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical?
Interesting....
Learner
Learner
Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> >If this person confesses his objections to icons to his Priest [as I
> >did] he would be told to abstain from receiving Communion until the
> >time that he reconciles himself to the teachings of the Church
[which I
> >never did].
> This would be *excommunication* NOT *anathemization* - who taught you
> your Orthodox theolgoy????
I apologize for my inaccurate use of terminology. I am an
historican/Semitic linguist, not a theologian, however I am often
called a Goy.
In any case, I believe that you have provided the answer to the
question that was asked in this discussion thread.
> >Ask your Priest what he would do under a similiar circumstance and
get
> >back with us.
> Uhm, in my case? Report it to my bishop, I would be asked why my
position
> on icons was, and if I was not in line with the 7th Council, I would
be
> immediately laicized (I'm a subdeacon), and excommunicated (ie told
to
> refrain from communion),....
So, we can conclude by saying that the belief that icons *should be*
venerated is an obligatory belief in the Orthodox Church. And, if one
believes in the Church's teachings, they will obviously, follow through
and venerate icons.
Also, one does not have to preach against icons or prevent others from
venerating icons - they simply need to disagree with the practice to be
place outside of the Sacramental life of the Church.
> >1. Is grace transmitted through the Sacraments of the Church? That
is
> >what the Church teaches.
> First of all, the church does not have 7 (or 6, or 8) dogmatically
> defined Sacraments. God's grace comes to us in whatever way he
choses
> to give it to us. Yes, through the sacraments, but also through
> prayer, veneration of icons, fasting, etc, etc, etc.
I didn't mention a number.
> >2. Is there grace, and therefore salvation, outside of the Orthodox
> >Church and its' Sacraments?
> There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. The Church *is* the
> body of Christ, thus, there is no salvation outside of the church.
> BUT, this does not mean that non-Orthodox cannot be saved. That is
> for God alone to decide. It's none of my business how God choses
> to operate. BUT, since I know of the Church, and I know her
teachings,
> I would place myself in grave danger by abbandoning the truth.
These two statements contradict each other. If there is no salvation
outside of the Church, and the Orthodox Church is the "true Church"
[and you know her teachings], then there is no salvation outside of
Orthodoxy.
Your co-religionist, Alfred, even claims that I lost my soul after
leaving Orthodoxy.
Learner
Learner
Leonidas wrote:
> > according to Acts 15:29 prohibited Gentiles from eating meat
sacrificed
> > to Pagan idols. But, Paul had to countermand the Council's decree
in 1
> > Corinthians 8:7-8.
> >
> > So, if a true Apostolic Council could commit errors, what about
those
> > held centuries after the Apostolic era? Let's look at some
> > history.....
>
> The Council did not commit an error. Rather, it made the radical
first step
> in what was the Church's eventual break with Judaic tradition.
If the Jerusalem Council did not commit an error, then why did Paul
countermand the Council's decree [Acts 15:29] in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8?
> The council
> is just an early snapshot of the Church as it moves away from the
strictures
> of Judaism as more and more gentiles join her. The more pro-gentile
> elements eventually pushed the Church to go even further. The
Apostolic
> Council shows two things: that councils are the instinctive way the
Church
> has of solving disputes; and that it takes more than one council to
solve a
> problem.
I would not assign so much credit to this process. There was no
monolithic ancient Church and this is painfully obvious in the New
Testament - where one group or another group was condemned as not
following the "correct" path.
For example, there was a another big dispute in early Christianity
between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem, and there are slightly
different accounts in the New Testament as to what happened.
According to Acts, [the "smoothed over" version of the story] (Acts
15:19-20), Paul went to the "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem in
order to discuss the issue of non-Jewish converts. The question at hand
was: should they be circumcised as well as baptized? James said that
these men need not be circumcised, but must follow the Law (as given in
Leviticus 17:8). The conclusion is called "the decision of the Holy
Spirit."
Paul's account of the events is a bit different (Galatians 2:1-10).
Paul speaks scornfully of the Jerusalem "pillars": "we did not submit
to them even for a moment," and "they asked only one thing, that we
should remember the poor." Paul says nothing about a "decision of the
Holy Spirit," but rather acts as if the whole matter were within his
control.
To make a long story short - there was a split between the Jewish
Christians and those who felt that non-Jewish converts could abandon
the law. By the way, this split was not mended in Paul's lifetime,
but continued for a long time - until the Jewish Christians faded away
and the majority of the Church were former Pagans.
> I am not very fond of claims of "infallibility." It is an alien way
of
> talking that I believe arose in the Protestant world and washed back
onto
> RCism (1870), and now is infecting Orthodox circles too. The
councils are
> what they are: viz. the entire Church's attempt to gather and speak
as one.
> Words like "infallible" are meaningless.
Perhaps, but many Orthodox refer to these Councils a infallible.
> > The 7th Ecumenical Council contradicted earliers Councils and
presents
> > a heretical Christology.
> > You have dodged this question before. If you argue that the
> > Incarnation legitimizes the production and veneration of icons - in
> > spite of the OT prohibition - you must assume one of two things:
> > God's nature changed when Jesus became a man since God is now
> > "depictable". [Nestorianism]
> What has God's nature changing to do with Nestorianism?
God was not "depictable" prior to the incarnation, but is said to be
"depictable" afterwards. So, to use the incarnation to argue in favor
of icons, you must either assume that Jesus' human nature [which can be
painted] is distince from His Divine nature which cannot be painted
since the Bible prohibits images of God.
> > Or, perhaps you could say that God became "depictable" as a man,
> > however, God remained "undepictable" as God. [Monophysitism]
> And the connection with Monophysitism is?
That Jesus' Divine nature cannot be distinctly painted appart from His
human nature.
> The Iconoclast emperor Constantine V tried to put the iconophiles on
the
> spot by arguing that, because they supposedly depicted only Christ's
human
> nature, and not his divine, undepictable nature, they were dividing
the
> natures and were thus Nestorian. Unfortunately, the emperor, like
you, his
> modern-day devotee, could have done with a course in Christology 101.
Perhaps you cannot enlighten me. What change took place in God's
nature to allow what was not allowed before? Can you defend icons of
Jesus, in spite of the fact that we may not have images of God,
> > One simply cannot defend icons based on this argument with
resorting
> > to either Nestorianism or Monophysitism.
>
> These shoddy arguments could just as easily be used against the
worship of
> Christ. For what do we worship? Christ's human nature, or his
divine
> nature? The answer? The icons depict the singular hypostasis or
person
> of the Incarnate Logos, the object of our worship. He is a divine
person
> who has added human nature to himself. One cannot talk of depicting
> unhypostatized nature. It's silly.
No, icons are merely wood and paint, they are not Christ in flesh or
Spirit. How can wood and paint become Spirit, as some in Orthodoxy
teach? Icons are nothing more the neo-Platonic Paganism with a very
thin Christian veneer.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>> This would be *excommunication* NOT *anathemization* - who taught you
>> your Orthodox theolgoy????
>
>I apologize for my inaccurate use of terminology. I am an
>historican/Semitic linguist, not a theologian, however I am often
>called a Goy.
I'm trained as an historian as well - in fact, it was my study of
church history that, combined with serious bible study, led me from
an Evangelical Protestant Church to the Orthodox Church...but that's
a story for another day.
>In any case, I believe that you have provided the answer to the
>question that was asked in this discussion thread.
:-)
>> Uhm, in my case? Report it to my bishop, I would be asked why my position
>> on icons was, and if I was not in line with the 7th Council, I would be
>> immediately laicized (I'm a subdeacon), and excommunicated (ie told to
>> refrain from communion),....
>
>So, we can conclude by saying that the belief that icons *should be*
>venerated is an obligatory belief in the Orthodox Church.
Yes - that would appear to be an accurate characterization - that to
be Orthodox, one must agree that icon veneration is proper, even if
one does not practice it oneself.
>And, if one
>believes in the Church's teachings, they will obviously, follow through
>and venerate icons.
If we were not fallen, self-willed creatures, then yes. But since man
*is* fallen, it would not surprise me that some individual would chose
not to venerate icons, even while knowing that the church believes it
to be a proper practice. The same goes for any sin - we fall short of
the ideal. We grow.
It's the opposition to the teaching that is the problem, not failing to
follow the teaching.
>Also, one does not have to preach against icons or prevent others from
>venerating icons - they simply need to disagree with the practice to be
>place outside of the Sacramental life of the Church.
To voice this, yes, that would be accurate. But to voice such an issue
is to take issue with the Council and with the dogmatic teachings of
the church (that icon veneration is proper), and since The Sacrament
(ie the Eucharist) is a sign of unity of faith, it should come as no
surprise that the Church would instruct those who are NOT in unity to
refrain from the sacrament.
>>>1. Is grace transmitted through the Sacraments of the Church? That is
>>>what the Church teaches.
>
>>First of all, the church does not have 7 (or 6, or 8) dogmatically
>>defined Sacraments. God's grace comes to us in whatever way he choses
>> to give it to us. Yes, through the sacraments, but also through
>> prayer, veneration of icons, fasting, etc, etc, etc.
>
>I didn't mention a number.
The phrase "the Sacraments" indicates a belief that there is some kind
of defined set of Sacramnets, which is not the case for Orthodoxy.
>> >2. Is there grace, and therefore salvation, outside of the Orthodox
>> >Church and its' Sacraments?
>
>>There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. The Church *is* the
>>body of Christ, thus, there is no salvation outside of the church.
>
>>BUT, this does not mean that non-Orthodox cannot be saved. That is
>>for God alone to decide. It's none of my business how God choses
>>to operate. BUT, since I know of the Church, and I know her teachings,
>> I would place myself in grave danger by abbandoning the truth.
>
>These two statements contradict each other. If there is no salvation
>outside of the Church, and the Orthodox Church is the "true Church"
>[and you know her teachings], then there is no salvation outside of
>Orthodoxy.
Note well what I wrote - no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. How
THAT specifically plays out in the life of an individual is not for
me to determine. But, once knowing the truth, to reject it is to
risk my soul - and for what??
It is the case that the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ, and
it is the case that it is the true Church. And it is the case that
there is no salvation outside the church. And yet, nothing that I
see in ANY dogmatic statements (or even in majority in non-dogmatic
ones) says ANYTHING about what happens with any certainty to the
heterodox. And that's the key - certainty.
>Your co-religionist, Alfred, even claims that I lost my soul after
>leaving Orthodoxy.
He *CAN'T* possibly know this, nor should he be taking God's position and
stating what your ultimate fate will be. THAT is up to the inscrutible
will of God. We can say that you are outside the Orthodox Church, and
as such, you have placed yourself at grave risk. But in the end, only
God determines who is and who is not saved, and how He will judge them.
Al is a bit over the top at times. :-)
Joe Orthodox
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>So, we can conclude by saying that the belief that icons *should be*
>>venerated is an obligatory belief in the Orthodox Church.
>>And, if one
>>believes in the Church's teachings, they will obviously, follow through
>>and venerate icons.
Your second sentence doesn't logically follow the first. You're trying
too hard, in some way, any way, to put a shoe on that doesn't fit. The
doctor says you should exercise everyday, but that hardly means you'll
*obviously* follow through and exercise everyday. Saying what you
"should" do, and what you "must" do, are two very different things.
>>Also, one does not have to preach against icons or prevent others from
>>venerating icons - they simply need to disagree with the practice to be
>>place outside of the Sacramental life of the Church.
Yes, that would mean you reject venerating icons, de facto becoming an
Iconoclast, which was condemned by the Council. Whether or not you try
to encourage others to follow your error is another issue.
>>These two statements contradict each other. If there is no salvation
>>outside of the Church, and the Orthodox Church is the "true Church"
>>[and you know her teachings], then there is no salvation outside of
>>Orthodoxy.
It's not a contradiction because we don't know for certain whether God
has, in His own way, bound to the Orthodox Church anyone who is visibly
outside the Orthodox Church, nor do we know what happens to this person
after death and God's means for making this person's status right with
His Church. God's Grace is not limited to the visible boundaries of the
Orthodox Church, though we don't presume where it might be outside those
confines.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Yes - that would appear to be an accurate characterization - that to
>be Orthodox, one must agree that icon veneration is proper, even if
>one does not practice it oneself.
>
"veneration" is proper -- that is, that they be accorded due respect,
and be seen as tangible "windows" on the intangible spiritual world.
On the other hand, I'm against icon "worship." (And this is the
official Orthodox position!)
My problem is with the blurring of the practical lines between
"veneration" and "worship." Among the rank-and-file Orthodox faithful,
what purports to be "veneration" often crosses over into "worship."
This can be seen in the use of the icons themselves as magical
talismans, the dedication of precious offerings to the icons, etc.
Occasionally, Orthodox hierarchs themselves speak out against these
abusive practices (the most recent case was that of a Metropolitan in
northern Greece castigating "idolatrous" practices, such as sending
certain icons on tour for the purpose of collecting money, etc.). But
the institutional Church too often looks the other way, because these
practices are to its pecuniary benefit.
Maybe the Orthodox Church needs a kind of "counter-Reformation" or
"Puritan" movement, so that the practice can at long last coincide
with the theory. But it may be impossible to purge and reform the
Church as long as it has its official status in the putatively
"Orthodox" countries. Entrenched positions hardly provide an
imperative for radical reform.
AGGreen
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105472868.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
>
> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
> > >If this person confesses his objections to icons to his Priest [as I
> > >did] he would be told to abstain from receiving Communion until the
> > >time that he reconciles himself to the teachings of the Church
> [which I
> > >never did].
>
> > This would be *excommunication* NOT *anathemization* - who taught you
> > your Orthodox theolgoy????
>
> I apologize for my inaccurate use of terminology. I am an
> historican/Semitic linguist, not a theologian, however I am often
> called a Goy.
***Try heretical schmuck!
AGGreen
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105479132.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>You ought to go argue with Learner who says there were multiple
>
> canons.
>
> There were multiple canons then, and there are multiple canons today -
> even between three jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church.
You've been spanked on that harangue countless times, but that's ok.
Your repeated errors are established and widely known. The fact
remains, which you try to evade... you can't and won't provide us the
list of books you regard as Scripture, OT and NT. The multiple canons
used by Prots over the ages were provided by the Orthodox Catholic
Church. Not only that, they can't even agree what's required for
salvation. Now, Lerner. Since you continue to believe the Orthodox
Church has three different canons with different teachings, then tell us
how these three jurisdictions differ in doctrine, teaching, belief, and
practice. You won't, because you can't, but will instead snip, evade,
dodge, harangue, and then mistakenly confuse different arbitrary naming
of books in a canon as being separate canons, when in fact they contain
the same material and doctrines.
You've been reading up on the Jesus Seminar, I see. Tell us, which NT
authors wrote a list of books they believed were inspired and which ones
were spurious? Please answer this question, Lerner, and provide the
quotes from Scripture to back it up. The truth is, no Gospel author
provides such a list.
> We know that there was an early period of oral tradition, when many
> stories circulated about Jesus and his teachings. Different communities
> were formed and many of them understood the meaning of Jesus, and His
> teachings, in different ways.
Your evidence? Or is it wishful thinking again? We know from Paul's
writings that some folks were practicing wrong beliefs and doctrines,
and he told us to guard against these lies by holding fast to the
traditions given to us by the Apostles. But it's been rather obvious
that you have a problem grasping the idea that such a thing exists as
wrong beliefs, unless of course it's Orthodox and then it gets the wet
haraguini treatment from you.
> A writer, now known as Mark, selected some of the oral traditions and
> put them into "Gospel" form . Mark's account begins with John the
> Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, and ends with an empty tomb with a group
> of frightened women fleeing and saying nothing to anyone about it to
> anyone. There is no virgin birth and miracles are rather sparse.
Also no rapture, sola scriptura, speaking in tongues, iconoclasm,
creationism, or whatever doctrines you've taken up.
Again, another fallacious repeat of your argumentum ex siletio, which
you've been corrected on countless times.
Read from Wikepedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
"The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics
against the virgin birth of Christ. St Paul, for example, does not
mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence
that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted
proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical fallacy, because ignorance is
only one possible reason for Paul's silence: it's also possible that he
did not think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his
reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or
mutilated. However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is
used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul
refers to the resurrection, it is certain that he knew of it; from the
fact that Paul does not refer to the virgin birth, it is not certain
that he knew of it, therefore he may have been ignorant of it."
> A few years down the road, two writers [each with his own unique
> perspective] created their own revisions of Mark - Matthew and Luke.
> Matthew used nearly 90% of Mark, but he added many passages where he
> attempted to link, what he believed to be OT prophecy, to events in
He attempted AND successfully linked. Sorry, Lerner, your theology of
unrestrained libido has gotten rather old.
> Jesus' life [ie the virgin birth]. Luke used Mark even less than
> Matthew, using only about 50%. The rest came from other sources - one
> of which Matthew also used.
>
> However, it is very obvious that, unlike the Orthodox Church, neither
> Matthew nor Luke
> considered Mark a divinely-inspired document. It was nothing more than
Your evidence? Or is it wishful thinking again? Your generous helpings
of the word "obvious", "clearly", and "we know" do nothing to add
substance to your spurious ramblings rooted in a festering hatred of
anything Orthodox.
> one source among many. Both cut parts out of it, inserted material from
> other sources, and even changed the wording, and its significance in
> numerous passages.
Changed what wording? The Letter of Q? Your evidence? Or is it
wishful thinking again?
> Luke, who admits that he was not an eyewitness, also said that many
Not an eyewitness, kinda like Paul.
> people had previously written accounts of traditions they believed were
> handed down from earlier eyewitnesses concerning Jesus. Luke clearly
> did not approve of those earlier accounts, including Mark, otherwise he
Whooops! There's that "clearly" word again. Sorry, Lerner, but your
lame attempts to add to Scripture does nothing to bolster your integrity.
> would not have written his own Gospel, which alone he describes as
> "authentic." Luke simply found Mark's Gospel to be unsatisfactory.
Yep, as simple as it takes for you to imagine seeing something that
isn't there.
> So, how can your Church justify including Mark with Luke and Matthew
> when the authors of these two Gospels believed the Gospel of Mark to be
> unsatisfactory to the point that they had to essentially re-write it?
My Church? Your Calvary Chapel says these Gospels are the Word of God.
Are you claiming they are not??? This is why not only your supposed
former Orthodoxy is doubted by others in this list, but also your
Christianity.
How about answering the question, rather than continuing to evade and
pretend it wasn't asked? What concise list of books do you believe are
inspired Scripture? How did you determine this? Why are you so afraid
of this question, El Lernbo?
>>>church and Catholic churches were not fully developed into the
>
> churches that we
>
>>>know today until they approved icons, relics and prayer to saints
>
> in 787 A.D.,
>
>>>and split from each other in 1054 A.D.
>
>
>>I'm sorry, but you're offering the canned talking points.
>
>
> Which happen to be true.
It's not true. Icons, relics, and prayer to saints were never
"approved." Iconoclasm was rejected. There's a difference. Icons were
no more approved than was praying, singing, writing hymns, lighting
candles, building churches, etc.
>>The Orthodox Catholic Church was born at the Pentecost.
>
>
> That is nothing more that a claim which, by the way, others Churches
> also make.
Which would include your Calvary Church cult.
>>The Churches you read about
>>in the Bible - Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Antioch, Jerusalem,
>
> etc -
>
>>still exist today and they are in the Orthodox Church. The Lord's
>>brother, James, was bishop of the Jerusalem Church, which still
>
> stands
>
>>today and is Orthodox. Peter started the Antiochian Church, which
>
> still
>
>>exists today and is Orthodox.
>
>
> And the land of Egypt, which we read about in the Bible, also exists
> today. So what?
Sorry, Stevie, another fallacious strike out. Egypt isn't the
organization set up by the Lord's Apostles, an organization which you
deny ever existed, and you can't explain where these aforementioned
Churches disappeared to, and where your supposedly true believing (i.e.
anything but Orthodox) churches existed for 1500 years.
> I have responded to this cut-and-paste on a number of occasions. As
> usual, you have no answers and can find none to cut-and-paste. So, in
> the tradition of Orthodoxy, you mindlessly repeat it.
You're stealing my lines again, O' Plagiarizing One. You might not hear
others protest your plagiarizing, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop
using my words and phrases as your own.
> The Church in Corinth recognized the universal authority of the Pope.
> In fact, the Church in Corinth considered letters written by Pope
> Clement of Rome (90-99), in which he urged, and received, their
> submission to his ecclesiastical authority as Scripture!
And you were spanked on this before, Lerner. Perhaps you'd like to
share the Catholic source you plagiarized from?
Read carefully this time, Lerner. The "letter" in question was written
in 69AD, but Clement was Pope from 93AD to 102AD (read Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapters XIII, XV, and XXXIV).
Furthermore, the letter references itself to be written in the name of
the Church of Rome, and not with any reference to Papal authority nor
any authority over Corinth. He had been a traveler with Paul in several
journeys and it's likely that he helped Paul establish Corinth. Thusly,
it makes sense that he was writing to people he knew personally and
wanted to help settle the disturbance. The letter had nothing to do
with papal authority.
The most important thing is... you've just contradicted your earlier
harangues, where you deny there was any Orthodox Catholic Church in the
first century!
> In other words, the Church in Corinth recognized and obeyed the
> universal authority of the Pope, so is it really the same Church as
> today?
Yep, they jumped into a time chariot, travelled thirty years into the
future, took orders from Pope Clement, then hopped back in their chariot
and returned to the 60's AD.
>>>As to the trinity, it is easily seen in scripture. WHen Jesus was
>
> baptized,
>
>>>the father spoke from heaven, Jesus was on the earth, and the Holy
>
> Spirit was
>
>>>descending to him. Three in one. Matt. 28:19 -- Father, Son and
>
> Holy Ghost. It
>
>>>is not that hard. The councils only confirmed the wisdom the Holy
>
> Spirit had
>
>>>already given the people.
>
>
>>Sorry, but the Bible does not say three in one, nor the relationship
>>between the three, nor their equal divinity, nor their individual
>>personhood.
> So are you now saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical?
> Interesting....
>
> Learner
No, I'm saying what we call the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the
Bible. It is Biblical, in that it's rooted in the passages referring to
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But that's not even close to the full
doctrine of the Trinity that's accepted by your Calvary Chapel, and
provided by the Orthodox Catholic Church. It's a matter of basic logic,
really.
Joe Orthodox
Learner wrote:
You've completely failed to grasp what Leonidas wrote, here and elsewhere.
>>I am not very fond of claims of "infallibility." It is an alien way
>
> of
>
>>talking that I believe arose in the Protestant world and washed back
>
> onto
>
>>RCism (1870), and now is infecting Orthodox circles too. The
>
> councils are
>
>>what they are: viz. the entire Church's attempt to gather and speak
>
> as one.
>
>>Words like "infallible" are meaningless.
>
>
> Perhaps, but many Orthodox refer to these Councils a infallible.
>
>
>>>The 7th Ecumenical Council contradicted earliers Councils and
>
> presents
>
>>>a heretical Christology.
>
>
>>>You have dodged this question before. If you argue that the
>>>Incarnation legitimizes the production and veneration of icons - in
>>>spite of the OT prohibition - you must assume one of two things:
>
>
>>>God's nature changed when Jesus became a man since God is now
>>>"depictable". [Nestorianism]
>
>
>>What has God's nature changing to do with Nestorianism?
>
>
> God was not "depictable" prior to the incarnation, but is said to be
> "depictable" afterwards. So, to use the incarnation to argue in favor
> of icons, you must either assume that Jesus' human nature [which can be
> painted] is distince from His Divine nature which cannot be painted
> since the Bible prohibits images of God.
Where? The same passages prohibit graven images of anything in heaven,
earth, or the seas. And yet, you and your co-religionists do these
things and fail to explain why. I asked you this before... and
surprise! You changed the subject, hoping others would forget and not
raise it again when you returned to the same old icon harangue again.
The reason you can't answer the question is that you seriously
misunderstand the graven image prohibition. Again, another of your
spankings you'd pretend to forget.
[snip Incarnation-denying, commandment-confused, Iconoclasm]
Leonidas
>
> Leonidas wrote:
>
>
>> > according to Acts 15:29 prohibited Gentiles from eating meat
> sacrificed
>> > to Pagan idols. But, Paul had to countermand the Council's decree
> in 1
>> > Corinthians 8:7-8.
>> >
>> > So, if a true Apostolic Council could commit errors, what about
> those
>> > held centuries after the Apostolic era? Let's look at some
>> > history.....
>>
>> The Council did not commit an error. Rather, it made the radical
> first step
>> in what was the Church's eventual break with Judaic tradition.
>
> If the Jerusalem Council did not commit an error, then why did Paul
> countermand the Council's decree [Acts 15:29] in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8?
He does not even mention a council in this passage let alone
"countermanding" one.
>> The council
>> is just an early snapshot of the Church as it moves away from the
> strictures
>> of Judaism as more and more gentiles join her. The more pro-gentile
>> elements eventually pushed the Church to go even further. The
> Apostolic
>> Council shows two things: that councils are the instinctive way the
> Church
>> has of solving disputes; and that it takes more than one council to
> solve a
>> problem.
>
> I would not assign so much credit to this process. There was no
> monolithic ancient Church and this is painfully obvious in the New
> Testament - where one group or another group was condemned as not
> following the "correct" path.
The Church was not monolithic as we might see it today, but Lk seems intent
on presenting a unified picture of the Church, though he does not gloss over
Paul's conflict with Barnabas over Mark. And Lk was in all probability a
disciple of Paul. Is it not remarkable that he try to present a unified
picture so early in the piece?
> For example, there was a another big dispute in early Christianity
> between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem, and there are slightly
> different accounts in the New Testament as to what happened.
We are not sure that Paul is describing the Apostolic Council in Gal.
2:1-10.
> According to Acts, [the "smoothed over" version of the story] (Acts
> 15:19-20), Paul went to the "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem in
> order to discuss the issue of non-Jewish converts. The question at hand
> was: should they be circumcised as well as baptized? James said that
> these men need not be circumcised, but must follow the Law (as given in
> Leviticus 17:8). The conclusion is called "the decision of the Holy
> Spirit."
There is no doubt that Paul is of a different mind to the "acknowledged
leaders," yet he still feels it necessary to confer with them and get their
approval for his work:
"I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only
in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I
proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running,
or had not run, in vain." (Gal 2:2)
No fringe Protestant would ever do what Paul did. Your attempt at imposing
Protestant fissional chaos onto the early Church just doesn't fly.
> Paul's account of the events is a bit different (Galatians 2:1-10).
> Paul speaks scornfully of the Jerusalem "pillars": "we did not submit
> to them even for a moment,"
The "them" to whom he did not submit were the "false believers secretly
brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so
that they
might enslave us." (Gal 2:4) He is not referring to the pillars here.
> and "they asked only one thing, that we
> should remember the poor."
The council Lk describes does not mention this. It says to abstain from
idol offerings, from blood, from what is strangled, and fornication. These
may be two different meetings.
> Paul says nothing about a "decision of the
> Holy Spirit," but rather acts as if the whole matter were within his
> control.
Again, it is not clear these are the same meetings.
> To make a long story short - there was a split between the Jewish
> Christians and those who felt that non-Jewish converts could abandon
> the law. By the way, this split was not mended in Paul's lifetime,
> but continued for a long time - until the Jewish Christians faded away
> and the majority of the Church were former Pagans.
This theory's old news, Learner. You are assuming that there were only two
factions in the early Church--"conservatives" ("Judaizers" normally
identified with James) and pro-gentile "progressives" (identified with
Paul). What about a moderate center, which scholars sometimes identify
with Peter, and for which Lk (Paul's disciple[?]) seems solidly to be
vouching?
>> I am not very fond of claims of "infallibility." It is an alien way
> of
>> talking that I believe arose in the Protestant world and washed back
> onto
>> RCism (1870), and now is infecting Orthodox circles too. The
> councils are
>> what they are: viz. the entire Church's attempt to gather and speak
> as one.
>> Words like "infallible" are meaningless.
>
> Perhaps, but many Orthodox refer to these Councils a infallible.
Do the Councils call themselves infallible?
>> > The 7th Ecumenical Council contradicted earliers Councils and
> presents
>> > a heretical Christology.
>
>> > You have dodged this question before. If you argue that the
>> > Incarnation legitimizes the production and veneration of icons - in
>> > spite of the OT prohibition - you must assume one of two things:
>
>> > God's nature changed when Jesus became a man since God is now
>> > "depictable". [Nestorianism]
>
>> What has God's nature changing to do with Nestorianism?
>
> God was not "depictable" prior to the incarnation, but is said to be
> "depictable" afterwards. So, to use the incarnation to argue in favor
> of icons, you must either assume that Jesus' human nature [which can be
> painted] is distince from His Divine nature which cannot be painted
> since the Bible prohibits images of God.
That's not what you said, Learner.
>> > Or, perhaps you could say that God became "depictable" as a man,
>> > however, God remained "undepictable" as God. [Monophysitism]
>
>> And the connection with Monophysitism is?
>
> That Jesus' Divine nature cannot be distinctly painted appart from His
> human nature.
That's not what you said, Learner.
>> The Iconoclast emperor Constantine V tried to put the iconophiles on
> the
>> spot by arguing that, because they supposedly depicted only Christ's
> human
>> nature, and not his divine, undepictable nature, they were dividing
> the
>> natures and were thus Nestorian. Unfortunately, the emperor, like
> you, his
>> modern-day devotee, could have done with a course in Christology 101.
>
> Perhaps you cannot enlighten me.
But I think I have enlightened you, Learner. It seems to me I helped you to
get straight Constantine's faux-argument against icons that you were trying
to use. You then appropriated what I wrote and tried to tidy up your
previous nonsense with it.
> What change took place in God's
> nature to allow what was not allowed before?
No change took place in the Logos' divine nature; the Logos remained God
though hypostatically he added human nature to himself. The point of
departure in one's contemplation of Christ is his Person, not his natures.
Before the Incarnation, the Logos does not have a human nature and is thus
invisible, after the Incarnation he does and thus is visible. Yet he
remains one and the same Person.
How does one "depict a Nature" anyway? Draw me a picture of Human nature
if, as you say, it's depictable.. You're dabbling in the most pitiable of
sophistries, to which you seem to be clutching like it were fool's gold.
> Can you defend icons of
> Jesus, in spite of the fact that we may not have images of God,
Absolutely. Tell me, when Jesus walked the earth, were the people seeing
his human nature of his divine nature? Were images of his human nature or
his
divine nature being formed on their retinas? Was his human nature or his
divine nature casting his shadow when He was standing in the sun?
>> > One simply cannot defend icons based on this argument with
> resorting
>> > to either Nestorianism or Monophysitism.
>>
>> These shoddy arguments could just as easily be used against the
> worship of
>> Christ. For what do we worship? Christ's human nature, or his
> divine
>> nature? The answer? The icons depict the singular hypostasis or
> person
>> of the Incarnate Logos, the object of our worship. He is a divine
> person
>> who has added human nature to himself. One cannot talk of depicting
>> unhypostatized nature. It's silly.
>
> No, icons are merely wood and paint,
I'll repeat the question, and this time no dodging.. What do you worship,
Christ's human nature or his divine nature? When you read the Gospel, do
you imagine
Christ's human nature or his divine nature? Do you imagine anything at all
when you're reading the Gospel?
> they are not Christ in flesh or
> Spirit.
Well duh, Learner. They are a visual depicition of the Person of Jesus
Christ, the Incarnate Logos
> How can wood and paint become Spirit, as some in Orthodoxy
> teach?
I don't hold such views, and I've never come across such views.
> Icons are nothing more the neo-Platonic Paganism with a very
> thin Christian veneer.
Rather, the very thin Christian veneer is coming from your direction. As
for icons, they are an affirmation of the Incarnation, something I suspect
troubles
the quasi-Islamic fringe group you seem to have joined.
> Learner
>
Learner
Leonidas wrote:
> >> The Iconoclast emperor Constantine V tried to put the iconophiles
on
> > the
> >> spot by arguing that, because they supposedly depicted only
Christ's
> > human
> >> nature, and not his divine, undepictable nature, they were
dividing
> > the
> >> natures and were thus Nestorian. Unfortunately, the emperor, like
> > you, his
> >> modern-day devotee, could have done with a course in Christology
101.
> > Perhaps you cannot enlighten me.
> But I think I have enlightened you, Learner. It seems to me I helped
you to
> get straight Constantine's faux-argument against icons that you were
trying
> to use. You then appropriated what I wrote and tried to tidy up
your
> previous nonsense with it.
Neither you, nor anyone in Constantine V's day have answered this
objection. If you believe that someone has, then please refer me to
their counter-argument.
> > What change took place in God's
> > nature to allow what was not allowed before?
> No change took place in the Logos' divine nature; the Logos remained
God
> though hypostatically he added human nature to himself. The point
of
> departure in one's contemplation of Christ is his Person, not his
natures.
> Before the Incarnation, the Logos does not have a human nature and is
thus
> invisible, after the Incarnation he does and thus is visible. Yet he
> remains one and the same Person.
But God did visit earth in human form prior to the incarnation [ie the
visit with Abraham - which is the subject of one of Rubleov's icons].
So is this icon correct or incorrect in its depiction of God the Father
and the un-incarnated Logos?
> How does one "depict a Nature" anyway? Draw me a picture of Human
nature
> if, as you say, it's depictable.. You're dabbling in the most
pitiable of
> sophistries, to which you seem to be clutching like it were fool's
gold.
We will get to this in a moment.
> > Can you defend icons of
> > Jesus, in spite of the fact that we may not have images of God,
> Absolutely. Tell me, when Jesus walked the earth, were the people
seeing
> his human nature of his divine nature? Were images of his human
nature or
> his
> divine nature being formed on their retinas? Was his human nature or
his
> divine nature casting his shadow when He was standing in the sun?
The people who saw Jesus saw both. An icon is not Jesus, it is wood
and paint.
> > No, icons are merely wood and paint,
>
> I'll repeat the question, and this time no dodging..
I do not dodge.
> What do you worship, Christ's human nature or his divine nature?
I worship both natures since they cannot be separated.
> When you read the Gospel, do you imagine
> Christ's human nature or his divine nature? Do you imagine anything
at all
> when you're reading the Gospel?
I don't really feel the need to imagine either when I read the Bible.
> > they are not Christ in flesh or
> > Spirit.
> Well duh, Learner. They are a visual depicition of the Person of
Jesus
> Christ, the Incarnate Logos
"Duh"? Really, it is sad to see you moving towards the Joe Orthodox
and Al terminology.
According to Ouspensky ["Theology", page 127] an icon of Christ
represents the image of the 'indivisible divine person', what he calls
the 'Son of God who came in the flesh' - since Jesus became visible
through the hypostasis. Ware claims that an icon is connected with
its prototype [in this case Jesus] and receives divine grace because it
depicts Christ and carries His name. The identity of an icon therefore
resembles the identity and likeness of Jesus and receives divine grace
through this depiction.
Therefore an icon of Christ is endowed with the "real presence" of
Christ - this was St. John of Damascus' opinion. And, according to
Ware, the Church Fathers believed that an icon of Christ is Christ in
the same sense that a portrait of the Byzantine Emperor is the Emperor,
being 'an extension of the imperial presence'. Icons of Saints are
believed to be the Saint.
So, if we believe your Church's claims, we receive grace through an
icon of Christ because the icon resembles its prototype [Christ]
through its hypostasis.
Now, let's look at some of the problems that this creates.
If we believe that an icon has a divine presence, and can act as an
intermediary between God and man through grace, icons effectively
eliminate the sacramental functions of Communion since the icon also
has the "real presence" of Christ.
Then we look at the icon itself. What does an iconographer *really*
paint? We have no idea of what Jesus looked like, so to what degree is
the icon painter reflecting Christ's real features [hypostasis] and how
much of the icon is simply the imagination of the artist?
There is a Chinese store on Canal Street [which is in NYC's Chinatown]
which has an icon of a Chinese Jesus. Ethiopians have icons of a black
Jesus. So, in the Orthodox view, what happens if the icon and its
prototype don't match? Clearly, Jesus wasn't Chinese! So, does this
icon convey divine grace or it is nothing more than an image?
Also, since Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the hypostasis and
image, the Church believes that the icon receives divine grace from the
prototype and conveys divine grace to those who venerate it. This is
nothing more than crude idolatry! If we see the Divine nature of God in
an icon of Christ, then we see God.
> > How can wood and paint become Spirit, as some in Orthodoxy
> > teach?
>
> I don't hold such views, and I've never come across such views.
See the above.
> > Icons are nothing more the neo-Platonic Paganism with a very
> > thin Christian veneer.
>
> Rather, the very thin Christian veneer is coming from your direction.
As
> for icons, they are an affirmation of the Incarnation, something I
suspect
> troubles the quasi-Islamic fringe group you seem to have joined.
I am not sure why you would make such a statement. I have been
respectful to you in our discussions and have appreciated your comments
and insights. It appears that Orthodoxy is affecting you, although not
to the degree that it has affected Al or Joe.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>On 11 Jan 2005 23:35:03 GMT, Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>Yes - that would appear to be an accurate characterization - that to
>>be Orthodox, one must agree that icon veneration is proper, even if
>>one does not practice it oneself.
>>
>Even I (who am generally no great fan of icons) would agree that icon
>"veneration" is proper -- that is, that they be accorded due respect,
>and be seen as tangible "windows" on the intangible spiritual world.
>On the other hand, I'm against icon "worship." (And this is the
>official Orthodox position!)
>
>My problem is with the blurring of the practical lines between
>"veneration" and "worship." Among the rank-and-file Orthodox faithful,
>what purports to be "veneration" often crosses over into "worship."
>This can be seen in the use of the icons themselves as magical
>talismans, the dedication of precious offerings to the icons, etc.
>
>Occasionally, Orthodox hierarchs themselves speak out against these
>abusive practices (the most recent case was that of a Metropolitan in
>northern Greece castigating "idolatrous" practices, such as sending
>certain icons on tour for the purpose of collecting money, etc.). But
>the institutional Church too often looks the other way, because these
>practices are to its pecuniary benefit.
In general, I agree with you....one must be very careful about the
line between veneration and idolatry. And yes, the Bishops should
speak out more when such practices occur.
Learner
Joe Orthodox wrote:
> "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >>So, we can conclude by saying that the belief that icons *should
be*
> >>venerated is an obligatory belief in the Orthodox Church.
> >>And, if one
> >>believes in the Church's teachings, they will obviously, follow
through
> >>and venerate icons.
> Your second sentence doesn't logically follow the first.
Sure it does. If you believe that icons should be venerated, and that
divine grace is transmitted through this veneration, then you would
venerate them. Likewise, if you believe in the Eucharist, would you
avoid it?
Clearly, if you believe that authentic faith is followed up by works,
then those who do not venerate icons lack this faith.
> You're trying
> too hard, in some way, any way, to put a shoe on that doesn't fit.
The
> doctor says you should exercise everyday, but that hardly means
you'll
> *obviously* follow through and exercise everyday. Saying what you
> "should" do, and what you "must" do, are two very different things.
Not a good analogy. The doctor gives advice, he really doesn't know
what will happen during excercise - even some well conditioned athletes
die after working out.
The Church claims to know what we must do to serve God, and in
Orthodoxy, the veneration of icons are a big part of the equation.
> It's not a contradiction because we don't know for certain whether
God
> has, in His own way, bound to the Orthodox Church anyone who is
visibly
> outside the Orthodox Church, nor do we know what happens to this
person
> after death and God's means for making this person's status right
with
> His Church. God's Grace is not limited to the visible boundaries of
the
> Orthodox Church, though we don't presume where it might be outside
those
> confines.
Interesting. This creates an interesting scenario. If I submit to the
teachings of Orthodoxy, then I really do not know if I will be saved in
an Orthodox Church or in any other Church. In fact, I have no
assurance of salvation at all in Orthodoxy.
However, if I go to an Evangelical Church [and I am not being an
apologist for them] they will tell me what I must do to be saved and
will tell me that Orthodoxy is dead wrong concerning salvation.
So, one would be better off going with the Evangelicals since,
according to Orthodoxy, I don't know where the Church isn't.
Learner
Leonidas
Learner, from what you have written below, it is clear you don't
understand the argument you invoked.
> > > What change took place in God's
> > > nature to allow what was not allowed before?
>
> > No change took place in the Logos' divine nature; the Logos remained
> God
> > though hypostatically he added human nature to himself. The point
> of
> > departure in one's contemplation of Christ is his Person, not his
> natures.
> > Before the Incarnation, the Logos does not have a human nature and is
> thus
> > invisible, after the Incarnation he does and thus is visible. Yet he
>
> > remains one and the same Person.
>
> But God did visit earth in human form prior to the incarnation [ie the
> visit with Abraham - which is the subject of one of Rubleov's icons].
> So is this icon correct or incorrect in its depiction of God the Father
> and the un-incarnated Logos?
It is a depiction of what has been revealed.
> > How does one "depict a Nature" anyway? Draw me a picture of Human
> nature
> > if, as you say, it's depictable.. You're dabbling in the most
> pitiable of
> > sophistries, to which you seem to be clutching like it were fool's
> gold.
>
> We will get to this in a moment.
Alas, we will.
> > > Can you defend icons of
> > > Jesus, in spite of the fact that we may not have images of God,
>
> > Absolutely. Tell me, when Jesus walked the earth, were the people
> seeing
> > his human nature of his divine nature? Were images of his human
> nature or
> > his
> > divine nature being formed on their retinas? Was his human nature or
> his
> > divine nature casting his shadow when He was standing in the sun?
>
> The people who saw Jesus saw both.
"The people...saw both." So you say they saw his divine nature, too.
Very, very interesting...
> An icon is not Jesus, it is wood
> and paint.
That's right. It is an image of Jesus fashioned from wood and paint.
> > > No, icons are merely wood and paint,
> >
> > I'll repeat the question, and this time no dodging..
>
> I do not dodge.
Sure you do. Apart from snipping a good half of the post w/o any sort
of closure, you dodged a few of the questions again. To repeat: what
formed his image on the retinas of his beholders, his divine nature or
his human nature?
> > What do you worship, Christ's human nature or his divine nature?
>
> I worship both natures since they cannot be separated.
So you worship a human nature (along with a divine one)? Does that not
make you a worshiper of men?
> > When you read the Gospel, do you imagine
> > Christ's human nature or his divine nature? Do you imagine anything
> at all
> > when you're reading the Gospel?
>
> I don't really feel the need to imagine either when I read the Bible.
So you never form a mental image of what you're reading? Nothing at
all? Astounding.
> > > they are not Christ in flesh or
> > > Spirit.
>
> > Well duh, Learner. They are a visual depicition of the Person of
> Jesus
> > Christ, the Incarnate Logos
>
> "Duh"? Really, it is sad to see you moving towards the Joe Orthodox
> and Al terminology.
It was a sign of exasperation at you. If you're going to spend your life
feebly attempting to rubbish other people's religion with sloppy
argumentation, then you will have to allow them a little "duh" every now
and again.
> According to Ouspensky ["Theology", page 127] an icon of Christ
> represents the image of the 'indivisible divine person', what he calls
> the 'Son of God who came in the flesh' - since Jesus became visible
> through the hypostasis. Ware claims that an icon is connected with
> its prototype [in this case Jesus] and receives divine grace because it
> depicts Christ and carries His name. The identity of an icon therefore
> resembles the identity and likeness of Jesus and receives divine grace
> through this depiction.
Tell me. How did "the believers" in Acts 5:14-15 understand the
connection between Peter and his shadow? After all, what is a shadow
but the mere privation of light?
> Therefore an icon of Christ is endowed with the "real presence" of
> Christ - this was St. John of Damascus' opinion. And, according to
> Ware, the Church Fathers believed that an icon of Christ is Christ in
> the same sense that a portrait of the Byzantine Emperor is the Emperor,
> being 'an extension of the imperial presence'. Icons of Saints are
> believed to be the Saint.
No one believes that an icon *is* the very person it depicts--that's
just your wrong headed caricature--but that the honor accorded to an
icon is directed at the prototype. What does the Seventh council have
to say?
> So, if we believe your Church's claims, we receive grace through an
> icon of Christ because the icon resembles its prototype [Christ]
> through its hypostasis.
"Through its hypostasis"? I can tell by your use of the language that
you're not quite sure of what's going on.
> Now, let's look at some of the problems that this creates.
>
> If we believe that an icon has a divine presence, and can act as an
> intermediary between God and man through grace, icons effectively
> eliminate the sacramental functions of Communion since the icon also
> has the "real presence" of Christ.
No they don't. You don't believe in communion anyway, so let's leave
that one for now.
> Then we look at the icon itself. What does an iconographer *really*
> paint? We have no idea of what Jesus looked like, so to what degree is
> the icon painter reflecting Christ's real features [hypostasis] and how
> much of the icon is simply the imagination of the artist?
What they "really" looked like is secondary in all this, though most
Christians know a picture of Christ when they see one.
> There is a Chinese store on Canal Street [which is in NYC's Chinatown]
> which has an icon of a Chinese Jesus.
And how did you know it was Jesus? Would you consider, say, spitting on
it, only as a sign that you are unmoved, in fact righteously disgusted
by, the idolatrous impulses it represents?
> Ethiopians have icons of a black
> Jesus.
Again, how did you know it was Jesus?
> So, in the Orthodox view, what happens if the icon and its
> prototype don't match?
And who is the judge of what "matches"?
> Clearly, Jesus wasn't Chinese! So, does this
> icon convey divine grace
Answer at the Acts 5:14-15 question above, and we'll see.
> or it is nothing more than an image?
I guess you are the kind of guy who would chastise a child for drawing
its parents in a way that is not "real." Or a van Gough or a Picasso
for drawing things in way not in accord with how you think they "really"
are.
If a Chinese reading about Christ sees him in his mind in a way that to
us appears "Chinese," can one chastise him? Maybe he really does see
Jesus that way. I am not sure that there is a normative way of
determining how people see things.
Still, from the Church's 2000 year life with Christ have emerged certain
general norms that express how the Church externalizes its image of
Christ. What is an icon, but the externalization of a pre-existing idea
in one's mind?
> Also, since Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the hypostasis and
> image,
"No distinction between the hypostasis and image"? Again, this is
misrepresentation. Orthodox do not consider an icon to be God
almighty. What are you saying?
> the Church believes that the icon receives divine grace from the
> prototype and conveys divine grace to those who venerate it. This is
> nothing more than crude idolatry!
Hey presto! You deliberately set it up beforehand as idolatry, and
behold! It's idolatry. Bravo.
> If we see the Divine nature of God in
> an icon of Christ, then we see God.
And we become like you who say that "The people who saw Jesus saw
both." Does that mean that it is you who are the idolater?
> > > How can wood and paint become Spirit, as some in Orthodoxy
> > > teach?
> >
> > I don't hold such views, and I've never come across such views.
>
> See the above.
Even those views (which you have not actually quoted) are just views,
not conciliar decrees, and they don't say even that wood and paint
become Spirit.
> > > Icons are nothing more the neo-Platonic Paganism with a very
> > > thin Christian veneer.
> >
> > Rather, the very thin Christian veneer is coming from your direction.
> As
> > for icons, they are an affirmation of the Incarnation, something I
> suspect
> > troubles the quasi-Islamic fringe group you seem to have joined.
>
> I am not sure why you would make such a statement. I have been
> respectful to you in our discussions and have appreciated your comments
> and insights.
I think it's completely on a par with your comment that "Icons are
nothing more the neo-Platonic Paganism with a very thin Christian
veneer," only more accurate. Islam arose from the very impulses you
seem to hold dear.
> It appears that Orthodoxy is affecting you, although not
> to the degree that it has affected Al or Joe.
And what is affecting you, Learner? Always criticizing the religion of
others from your eagle's nest of carefully guarded denominational
anonymity, then playing the victim when they respond in kind? So
what's *your* problem?
> Learner
AGGreen
"Leonidas" <orthodoxt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41E58E...@yahoo.com...
> Learner wrote:
> >
> > Leonidas wrote:
> >
>
> Learner, from what you have written below, it is clear you don't
> understand the argument you invoked.
***This is the Mormon Learner's usual pattern...an ignorant boob!
AGGreen
>
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
> > "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > >>So, we can conclude by saying that the belief that icons *should
> be*
> > >>venerated is an obligatory belief in the Orthodox Church.
> > >>And, if one
> > >>believes in the Church's teachings, they will obviously, follow
> through
> > >>and venerate icons.
>
> > Your second sentence doesn't logically follow the first.
>
> Sure it does. If you believe that icons should be venerated, and that
> divine grace is transmitted through this veneration, then you would
> venerate them. Likewise, if you believe in the Eucharist, would you
> avoid it?
>
> Clearly, if you believe that authentic faith is followed up by works,
> then those who do not venerate icons lack this faith.
***What a bunch of crap from Mormon Learner. Since veneration of icons is
NOT a requirement, not venerating doesn't indicate a lack of faith at all.
Man, why don't you come up with something intelligent for once?
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>>So, we can conclude by saying that the belief that icons *should
>
> be*
>
>>>>venerated is an obligatory belief in the Orthodox Church.
>>>>And, if one
>>>>believes in the Church's teachings, they will obviously, follow
>
> through
>
>>>>and venerate icons.
>
>
>>Your second sentence doesn't logically follow the first.
>
>
> Sure it does. If you believe that icons should be venerated, and that
> divine grace is transmitted through this veneration, then you would
> venerate them. Likewise, if you believe in the Eucharist, would you
> avoid it?
Like I wrote and you snipped, a "should" doesn't equate with a "must",
and saying one should do something doesn't logically imply that one will
do it or even that you must do it.
> Clearly, if you believe that authentic faith is followed up by works,
> then those who do not venerate icons lack this faith.
Lerner, I really don't know what to say anymore about your inability to
put together a logically coherent sentence. You're committing the
fallacy of composition again. You're trying to replace the broader
category of "works" with the specific act of "icon veneration"; not
only is this fallacious reasoning, but icon veneration is not the
"works" the Orthodox Church teaches one must perform to live a saving
faith. Again, another example of your strawman redefining of Orthodox
terminology.
>> You're trying
>>too hard, in some way, any way, to put a shoe on that doesn't fit.
>
> The
>
>>doctor says you should exercise everyday, but that hardly means
>
> you'll
>
>>*obviously* follow through and exercise everyday. Saying what you
>>"should" do, and what you "must" do, are two very different things.
>
>
> Not a good analogy. The doctor gives advice, he really doesn't know
> what will happen during excercise - even some well conditioned athletes
> die after working out.
The analogy fits like the doctor's glove, not your procto-diversions.
Because someone says you should do something doesn't mean you will do it
or must do it. Because the doctor says you should exercise because it's
good for you, and I even agree with him, there's no logical necessity
that I will do it. Lerner, you've got to be kidding. Do you really
lack first-grade common sense? Why are there so many fat Americans,
when everyone knows you shouldn't do things that make you fat? Rant
more coherently next time.
> The Church claims to know what we must do to serve God, and in
> Orthodoxy, the veneration of icons are a big part of the equation.
They must participate in the sacramental life of the Church, (local
geography and proximity to an Orthodox parish duly considered), and
perform the spiritual and temporal works of faith - praying, spreading
the Faith, feeding the poor, respecting your parents, visiting those
imprisoned, etc. Icons are not a sacrament, nor are they a "work" of
faith. There's no "equation" of works that includes a mandate to
venerate icons. Again, you're trying some way, any way, to put this
shoe on that doesn't fit.
>>It's not a contradiction because we don't know for certain whether
>
> God
>
>>has, in His own way, bound to the Orthodox Church anyone who is
>
> visibly
>
>>outside the Orthodox Church, nor do we know what happens to this
>
> person
>
>>after death and God's means for making this person's status right
>
> with
>
>>His Church. God's Grace is not limited to the visible boundaries of
>
> the
>
>>Orthodox Church, though we don't presume where it might be outside
>
> those
>
>>confines.
>
>
> Interesting. This creates an interesting scenario. If I submit to the
> teachings of Orthodoxy, then I really do not know if I will be saved in
> an Orthodox Church or in any other Church. In fact, I have no
> assurance of salvation at all in Orthodoxy.
That's correct. Just becoming Orthodox and going throught the motions
saves no one. This was the point I made to Craig, whereas many
evangelicals tend to erroneously assume that Orthodox are teaching the
opposite that performing rituals saves. Whereas we worship as grown men
and are not afraid of the hard path ahead, you seek the psychological
pacifier of an assurance and guarantee through an easy 1-2-3 prayer to
salvation.
> However, if I go to an Evangelical Church [and I am not being an
> apologist for them] they will tell me what I must do to be saved and
> will tell me that Orthodoxy is dead wrong concerning salvation.
Not exactly. Which Evangelical Church? The
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America will tell you
that you just the opposite of the Calvary Chapel. They all
teach that you have to believe in their conception of
"believing" in Christ, or you're doomed. This gets to
the question I raised with Craig... If belief in
Christ is all that a particular Evangelical sect
requires for salvation now, and this salvation can't
be lost, then why are you so peeved about the beliefs
of Orthodox and Catholics? Surely you can agree that
we "believe" in Christ, though our manner of belief is
different? This exposes the belief-only mantra as
really meaning a lot more than belief-only. The
content, expression, and quality of that belief is
implicitly bundled with your theology, just as it is
in the OC, though you'll explicitly claim otherwise. At
least we're being honest about what we're teaching.
By the way, for what are you an apologist for? Why
did you join the Calvary Chapel if you don't believe
in their doctrines? Are you admitting that you say
and do things you don't believe in? Why is that
not surprising?
> So, one would be better off going with the Evangelicals since,
> according to Orthodoxy, I don't know where the Church isn't.
>
> Learner
Sorry, but you once again mischaracterize what I
wrote, not to mention you again construct an illogical
sentence. I didn't quite write that we don't know
where the Church isn't, but that we don't know God's
ways of grafting the stray sheep to His Church. The
Church is visibly the Orthodox Church. In addition,
there is an invisible component, but unlike many on
the fundamentalist Protestant side, we recognize the
Church is necessarily visible as well, or else
Scripture doesn't make sense. The only reasonable
excuse for not being in the visible Church, which
is required in accordance with Christ's will, is that the
person doesn't know about it because of geographical
or historical factors, but lived a life in accord to
that intended by God as best as possible. They could
very well be one of the stray sheep bound to the OC
invisibly. But since you, at least by your words in
this list, say that you were once Orthodox, and now
you've rejected the OC and unrepentently separated
yourself from the OC, it's not Orthodox teaching that
you, Stephen, are in the Church in any way, shape, or form.
And you're most definitely not better off going to a
sect that says your salvation is a done deal after the
sinner's prayer.
Learner
Leonidas wrote:
> > Neither you, nor anyone in Constantine V's day have answered this
> > objection. If you believe that someone has, then please refer me
to
> > their counter-argument.
> Learner, from what you have written below, it is clear you don't
> understand the argument you invoked.
And you have done nothing to enlighten me.
> > But God did visit earth in human form prior to the incarnation [ie
the
> > visit with Abraham - which is the subject of one of Rubleov's
icons].
> > So is this icon correct or incorrect in its depiction of God the
Father
> > and the un-incarnated Logos?
> It is a depiction of what has been revealed.
Revealed to whom? Was this revealed to Rubleov?
> > > I'll repeat the question, and this time no dodging..
> > I do not dodge.
> Sure you do. Apart from snipping a good half of the post w/o any
sort
> of closure, you dodged a few of the questions again. To repeat: what
> formed his image on the retinas of his beholders, his divine nature
or
> his human nature?
If we assume that Jesus was both God and man, then they saw both. Now,
I can imagine that you are jumping and saying "see! that is what icons
are". But, not so fast.
Your Church claims that an icon of Christ represents the image of the
indivisible divine person - the 'Son of God who came in the flesh',
became visible in his hypostasis. These are not my words, this what
Ouspensky ["Theology", page 127] and Ware ["Theology", page 198] say.
So, an icon merely presents a physical image of a man, putting aside
the problem that we don't really know what Jesus looked like. If you
claim that the icon also shows the Divine nature of Jesus, then they
wood and paint would also be Divine.
So, you have not only divided God and His natures, you have created an
idol.
> > > What do you worship, Christ's human nature or his divine nature?
> >
> > I worship both natures since they cannot be separated.
>
> So you worship a human nature (along with a divine one)? Does that
not
> make you a worshiper of men?
Only if you assume that these natures can be separated.
> > I don't really feel the need to imagine either when I read the
Bible.
> So you never form a mental image of what you're reading? Nothing at
> all? Astounding.
Not really, I am looking for ideas, not pictures.
> > "Duh"? Really, it is sad to see you moving towards the Joe
Orthodox
> > and Al terminology.
> It was a sign of exasperation at you. If you're going to spend your
life
> feebly attempting to rubbish other people's religion with sloppy
> argumentation, then you will have to allow them a little "duh" every
now
> and again.
I am not rubbishing anything. If your Church's teachings are
contradictory and don't make sense, that is not my fault!
> > According to Ouspensky ["Theology", page 127] an icon of Christ
> > represents the image of the 'indivisible divine person', what he
calls
> > the 'Son of God who came in the flesh' - since Jesus became visible
> > through the hypostasis. Ware claims that an icon is connected
with
> > its prototype [in this case Jesus] and receives divine grace
because it
> > depicts Christ and carries His name. The identity of an icon
therefore
> > resembles the identity and likeness of Jesus and receives divine
grace
> > through this depiction.
> Tell me. How did "the believers" in Acts 5:14-15 understand the
> connection between Peter and his shadow? After all, what is a shadow
> but the mere privation of light?
They believed that it was a talisman that could heal them.
> > Therefore an icon of Christ is endowed with the "real presence" of
> > Christ - this was St. John of Damascus' opinion. And, according to
> > Ware, the Church Fathers believed that an icon of Christ is Christ
in
> > the same sense that a portrait of the Byzantine Emperor is the
Emperor,
> > being 'an extension of the imperial presence'. Icons of Saints are
> > believed to be the Saint.
> No one believes that an icon *is* the very person it depicts--that's
> just your wrong headed caricature--but that the honor accorded to an
> icon is directed at the prototype. What does the Seventh council
have
> to say?
That is what Ware says in "Theology", page 192.
> > So, if we believe your Church's claims, we receive grace through an
> > icon of Christ because the icon resembles its prototype [Christ]
> > through its hypostasis.
> "Through its hypostasis"? I can tell by your use of the language
that
> you're not quite sure of what's going on.
Oh, but I do understand. Ouspensky and Ware both make this argument.
> > Now, let's look at some of the problems that this creates.
> >
> > If we believe that an icon has a divine presence, and can act as an
> > intermediary between God and man through grace, icons effectively
> > eliminate the sacramental functions of Communion since the icon
also
> > has the "real presence" of Christ.
>
> No they don't. You don't believe in communion anyway, so let's leave
> that one for now.
My beliefs concerning Communion do not brush away this problem.
Ware tells us ["Theology", page 192], that the Church Fathers taught
that an icon of Christ is Christ in the same way that the portrait of
the Emperor is the Emperor, and is 'an extension of the imperial
presence. The same is true for the icons of Saints.
> > Then we look at the icon itself. What does an iconographer
*really*
> > paint? We have no idea of what Jesus looked like, so to what
degree is
> > the icon painter reflecting Christ's real features [hypostasis] and
how
> > much of the icon is simply the imagination of the artist?
> What they "really" looked like is secondary in all this, though most
> Christians know a picture of Christ when they see one.
And why is that? How do people "know" what Jesus looked like?
> > There is a Chinese store on Canal Street [which is in NYC's
Chinatown]
> > which has an icon of a Chinese Jesus.
> And how did you know it was Jesus?
The shop owner said so.
> Would you consider, say, spitting on
> it, only as a sign that you are unmoved, in fact righteously
disgusted
> by, the idolatrous impulses it represents?
No. I also would never spit on the Qur'an, the Avesta, or a statue of
Shiva.
> > Ethiopians have icons of a black
> > Jesus.
> Again, how did you know it was Jesus?
They say so.
> > So, in the Orthodox view, what happens if the icon and its
> > prototype don't match?
> And who is the judge of what "matches"?
Uh, let me guess... the Church, who also has no idea of what Jesus
looked like?
> > Clearly, Jesus wasn't Chinese! So, does this
> > icon convey divine grace
> Answer at the Acts 5:14-15 question above, and we'll see.
I did. The people thought that the shadow was a talisman.
> > or it is nothing more than an image?
> I guess you are the kind of guy who would chastise a child for
drawing
> its parents in a way that is not "real." Or a van Gough or a Picasso
> for drawing things in way not in accord with how you think they
"really"
> are.
No. One of John of Damascus' clincher arguments in his inadequate
apology for icons, was that an accurate image existed. We now know
that there is no such thing.
> If a Chinese reading about Christ sees him in his mind in a way that
to
> us appears "Chinese," can one chastise him? Maybe he really does
see
> Jesus that way. I am not sure that there is a normative way of
> determining how people see things.
But then the image does not match the prototype. Come on, be
consistent with your Church's teachings!
> Still, from the Church's 2000 year life with Christ have emerged
certain
> general norms that express how the Church externalizes its image of
> Christ. What is an icon, but the externalization of a pre-existing
idea
> in one's mind?
Do you have any 2000 year old icons of Christ?
> > Also, since Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the hypostasis
and
> > image,
> "No distinction between the hypostasis and image"? Again, this is
> misrepresentation. Orthodox do not consider an icon to be God
> almighty. What are you saying?
No it is not, See Ouspensky, ["Theology", page 140].
> > the Church believes that the icon receives divine grace from the
> > prototype and conveys divine grace to those who venerate it. This
is
> > nothing more than crude idolatry!
> Hey presto! You deliberately set it up beforehand as idolatry, and
> behold! It's idolatry. Bravo.
No, it is what it is.
> > If we see the Divine nature of God in
> > an icon of Christ, then we see God.
> And we become like you who say that "The people who saw Jesus saw
> both." Does that mean that it is you who are the idolater?
No, because Jesus was not an idol.
> > > > How can wood and paint become Spirit, as some in Orthodoxy
> > > > teach?
> > >
> > > I don't hold such views, and I've never come across such views.
> >
> > See the above.
>
> Even those views (which you have not actually quoted) are just views,
> not conciliar decrees, and they don't say even that wood and paint
> become Spirit.
OK.....
> > It appears that Orthodoxy is affecting you, although not
> > to the degree that it has affected Al or Joe.
> And what is affecting you, Learner? Always criticizing the religion
of
> others from your eagle's nest of carefully guarded denominational
> anonymity, then playing the victim when they respond in kind? So
> what's *your* problem?
I have no problem. My beliefs are of no concern. You, and your
co-religionists should be able to defend what you believe without
counter-attacking other beliefs. Proving other beliefs incorrect does
not automatically prove your beliefs.
Learner
Learner
Learner
Joe Orthodox
> Leonidas wrote:
>>Learner, from what you have written below, it is clear you don't
>>understand the argument you invoked.
>
>
> And you have done nothing to enlighten me.
Of course not. You can't enlighten a sack of potatoes.
[snip continued inability to read and understand basic English]
> Do you have any 2000 year old icons of Christ?
Got any 2000 year old copies of Exodus? How about 2000 year old letters
from Paul? You've been spanked on this stupidity before.
[snip diversions]
AGGreen
>
>
> If we assume that Jesus was both God and man, then they saw both. Now,
> I can imagine that you are jumping and saying "see! that is what icons
> are". But, not so fast.
>
> Your Church claims that an icon of Christ represents the image of the
> indivisible divine person - the 'Son of God who came in the flesh',
> became visible in his hypostasis. These are not my words, this what
> Ouspensky ["Theology", page 127] and Ware ["Theology", page 198] say.
>
> So, an icon merely presents a physical image of a man, putting aside
> the problem that we don't really know what Jesus looked like. If you
> claim that the icon also shows the Divine nature of Jesus, then they
> wood and paint would also be Divine.
>
> So, you have not only divided God and His natures, you have created an
> idol.
***This is logic. This is the dumbest piece of anti-Church bullcrap I've
ever read. If you're going to try and destroy the Body of Christ, at least
say intelligent things. You really are a Jehovah's Witness, aren't you.
AL
AGGreen
into a corner again. You are such a horses backside, Mormon.
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105660941.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:l0FFd.213148$T02....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
***Joe, don't forget the first icon...the blessed Mother...written by St.
Luke. It still exists.
Al
Leonidas
>
> Leonidas wrote:
>
>> > Neither you, nor anyone in Constantine V's day have answered this
>> > objection. If you believe that someone has, then please refer me
> to
>> > their counter-argument.
>
>> Learner, from what you have written below, it is clear you don't
>> understand the argument you invoked.
>
> And you have done nothing to enlighten me.
It's like asking me to enlighten you about Laplace Transforms, about which
you pretend to be a specialist, when it is clear you know nothing about
Mathematics. Groaning, I'll persevere.
>> > But God did visit earth in human form prior to the incarnation [ie
> the
>> > visit with Abraham - which is the subject of one of Rubleov's
> icons].
>> > So is this icon correct or incorrect in its depiction of God the
> Father
>> > and the un-incarnated Logos?
>
>> It is a depiction of what has been revealed.
>
> Revealed to whom? Was this revealed to Rubleov?
No, but it was revealed in the Old Testament. Rublev is not making up the
scene. He has just made the pictorial depiction of Gen. 18. The way one
kisses the words of the Bible, one can kiss here the words of the Bible made
>> > > I'll repeat the question, and this time no dodging..
>
>> > I do not dodge.
>
>> Sure you do. Apart from snipping a good half of the post w/o any
> sort
>> of closure, you dodged a few of the questions again. To repeat: what
>> formed his image on the retinas of his beholders, his divine nature
> or
>> his human nature?
>
> If we assume that Jesus was both God and man, then they saw both. Now,
> I can imagine that you are jumping and saying "see! that is what icons
> are".
We would never say amything so stupid. Despite all your swagger, Learner,
by saying that "they saw both" natures, you've shown you know zip about
Christology . They did NOT see both. They could NOT see both. They could
see only Christ's human nature. It's ontologically impossible to see his
divine nature; it's non-material and thus cannot be seen. They saw the
human nature that the Divine Word added to himself. In the incarnation, he
who was thitherto unseen became seen. This is not Nestorian, because we are
not talking of two separate persons here, but one and the same Person--the
preexistent Logos, who has became Incarnate. It's standard Christology.
> But, not so fast.
I think you need to spend time thinking about things. You seem hopelessly
confused.
> Your Church claims that an icon of Christ represents the image of the
> indivisible divine person - the 'Son of God who came in the flesh',
> became visible in his hypostasis. These are not my words, this what
> Ouspensky ["Theology", page 127] and Ware ["Theology", page 198] say.
Which part of it are their words and which part of it yours? Use quotation
marks.
> So, an icon merely presents a physical image of a man, putting aside
> the problem that we don't really know what Jesus looked like. If you
> claim that the icon also shows the Divine nature of Jesus, then they
> wood and paint would also be Divine.
We don't say that an icon shows the divine nature. We are not idolaters
like you, who say that Jesus' beholders saw the divine nature. If they saw
it, then it can be drawn. Thus, according to you, the divine nature nature
can be drawn. Ergo, YOU are the idolater, not we.
> So, you have not only divided God and His natures, you have created an
> idol.
YOU are the idolater. You think that the divine nature can be seen. And if
it can be seen, then it can be drawn. Thus, you think you can draw the
divine nature....
>> > > What do you worship, Christ's human nature or his divine nature?
>> >
>> > I worship both natures since they cannot be separated.
>>
>> So you worship a human nature (along with a divine one)? Does that
> not
>> make you a worshiper of men?
>
> Only if you assume that these natures can be separated.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In worshipping Christ,
one is worshipping his divine Person. What is a "Person"? A "who."
Someone you can point to and say, "That is X." Now this Person, the Logos,
the Son of God, being Divine, has a divine nature. Prior to the Incarnation
this WHO was invisible because the divine nature is utterly transcendent and
invisible to humans. In the Incarnation, however, this same person added
human nature to himself, became a human without ceasing to be divine, but
remained the same WHO as whe was beofre the Incarnation. In this new state,
this WHO can now be seen (and drawn), on accoiunt of the human nature he has
assumed, but his divine nature remains invisible as it was before. This is
why the Council in its first anathema calls Christ "perigrapton...kata to
anthrwpinon" ("representable according to his humanity.")
>> > I don't really feel the need to imagine either when I read the
> Bible.
>
>> So you never form a mental image of what you're reading? Nothing at
>> all? Astounding.
>
> Not really, I am looking for ideas, not pictures.
What does "Not really" mean? What form do these ideas take in your head?
In my experience, it is perfectly natural to form a mental picture in one's
mind. Sometimes, these may take on a more abstracted, ideal form, other
times more "realist" if you will. Maybe you hate art--who knows?--and all
this falls on you like a dud. But iconography acknowledges the
multivalency of human perception and cognition. You would have humanity
narrow itself down to the written word only, in the name of upholding a 800
BC stricture against images. All this while pleading the suuposed "freedom
from the Law."
Nothing personal, but all this reflects for me a latent hatred of culture
and a deep revulsion toward humanity. Fundamentalist Islam and
Fundamentalist Protestantism took deepest root in cultural backwaters.
>> > "Duh"? Really, it is sad to see you moving towards the Joe
> Orthodox
>> > and Al terminology.
>
>> It was a sign of exasperation at you. If you're going to spend your
> life
>> feebly attempting to rubbish other people's religion with sloppy
>> argumentation, then you will have to allow them a little "duh" every
> now
>> and again.
>
> I am not rubbishing anything. If your Church's teachings are
> contradictory and don't make sense, that is not my fault!
Give it a rest, Learner. Just because you don't understand Math, it doesn't
mean Laplace Transforms "are contradictory and don't make sense." It's not
your fault you don't know Math, I agree, but your loose mouth and your
readiness to accuse all the same is your fault.
>> > According to Ouspensky ["Theology", page 127] an icon of Christ
>> > represents the image of the 'indivisible divine person', what he
> calls
>> > the 'Son of God who came in the flesh' - since Jesus became visible
>> > through the hypostasis. Ware claims that an icon is connected
> with
>> > its prototype [in this case Jesus] and receives divine grace
> because it
>> > depicts Christ and carries His name. The identity of an icon
> therefore
>> > resembles the identity and likeness of Jesus and receives divine
> grace
>> > through this depiction.
>
>> Tell me. How did "the believers" in Acts 5:14-15 understand the
>> connection between Peter and his shadow? After all, what is a shadow
>> but the mere privation of light?
>
> They believed that it was a talisman that could heal them.
That's debateable, but the fact is that Lk does not seem at all perturbed by
it. While we're at it, what is the connection between Christ, and the
Biblical words or the words of a sermon about Christ that lift us toward
him?
>> > Therefore an icon of Christ is endowed with the "real presence" of
>> > Christ - this was St. John of Damascus' opinion. And, according to
>> > Ware, the Church Fathers believed that an icon of Christ is Christ
> in
>> > the same sense that a portrait of the Byzantine Emperor is the
> Emperor,
>> > being 'an extension of the imperial presence'. Icons of Saints are
>> > believed to be the Saint.
>
>> No one believes that an icon *is* the very person it depicts--that's
>> just your wrong headed caricature--but that the honor accorded to an
>> icon is directed at the prototype. What does the Seventh council
> have
>> to say?
>
> That is what Ware says in "Theology", page 192.
An icon is not the *very* person it depicts.
>> > So, if we believe your Church's claims, we receive grace through an
>> > icon of Christ because the icon resembles its prototype [Christ]
>> > through its hypostasis.
>
>> "Through its hypostasis"? I can tell by your use of the language
> that
>> you're not quite sure of what's going on.
>
> Oh, but I do understand. Ouspensky and Ware both make this argument.
No, you DON'T understand. Despite the swagger, I am sorry to say it is
clear you don't understand Christology. You don't know what Nestorianism
is, and you don't understand what Monophysitism is. Anyone who thinks and
INSISTS that both the human AND divine nature are visible has pretty well
cooked his goose. A babbling idolater.
>> > Now, let's look at some of the problems that this creates.
>> >
>> > If we believe that an icon has a divine presence, and can act as an
>> > intermediary between God and man through grace, icons effectively
>> > eliminate the sacramental functions of Communion since the icon
> also
>> > has the "real presence" of Christ.
>>
>> No they don't. You don't believe in communion anyway, so let's leave
>> that one for now.
>
> My beliefs concerning Communion do not brush away this problem.
It is not a real presence in the way Christ is really present in the
Eucharist.
> Ware tells us ["Theology", page 192], that the Church Fathers taught
> that an icon of Christ is Christ in the same way that the portrait of
> the Emperor is the Emperor, and is 'an extension of the imperial
> presence. The same is true for the icons of Saints.
But we all know that the statue of the emperor is NOT physically the
emperor. It is a tactile reminder of his existence and is in that way an
extension of sorts of his presence, but is not the actual emperor.
>> > Then we look at the icon itself. What does an iconographer
> *really*
>> > paint? We have no idea of what Jesus looked like, so to what
> degree is
>> > the icon painter reflecting Christ's real features [hypostasis] and
> how
>> > much of the icon is simply the imagination of the artist?
>
>> What they "really" looked like is secondary in all this, though most
>> Christians know a picture of Christ when they see one.
>
> And why is that? How do people "know" what Jesus looked like?
Because they identify certain features in the picture that make it Christ.
>> > There is a Chinese store on Canal Street [which is in NYC's
> Chinatown]
>> > which has an icon of a Chinese Jesus.
>
>> And how did you know it was Jesus?
>
> The shop owner said so.
Was he Orthodox?
>> Would you consider, say, spitting on
>> it, only as a sign that you are unmoved, in fact righteously
> disgusted
>> by, the idolatrous impulses it represents?
>
> No. I also would never spit on the Qur'an, the Avesta, or a statue of
> Shiva.
Fine.
>> > Ethiopians have icons of a black
>> > Jesus.
>
>> Again, how did you know it was Jesus?
>
> They say so.
I've never had problems identifying Christ in Ethiopian iconography.
>> > So, in the Orthodox view, what happens if the icon and its
>> > prototype don't match?
>
>> And who is the judge of what "matches"?
>
> Uh, let me guess... the Church, who also has no idea of what Jesus
> looked like?
Yet, like I said, we all know a picture of Christ when we see one.
>> > Clearly, Jesus wasn't Chinese! So, does this
>> > icon convey divine grace
>
>> Answer at the Acts 5:14-15 question above, and we'll see.
>
> I did. The people thought that the shadow was a talisman.
See above. Does Luke seem to record any disdain?
>> > or it is nothing more than an image?
>
>> I guess you are the kind of guy who would chastise a child for
> drawing
>> its parents in a way that is not "real." Or a van Gough or a Picasso
>> for drawing things in way not in accord with how you think they
> "really"
>> are.
>
> No. One of John of Damascus' clincher arguments in his inadequate
> apology for icons, was that an accurate image existed.
This may be one of the Damascene's arguments (chapter and verse would be
nice, though), but that is not what the Council decrees, is it? From what I
remember, Photius argues that culturally variant depictions of Christ are
equally valid. I am sorry I cannot provide you a citation just yet, but it
is contained in Boulgarakis' book on Missiology (in Greek) which I don't
have with me.
> We now know
> that there is no such thing.
How do we know "there is no such thing"? Did not Paul see Christ? Did not
the writer of Rev see Christ? Can we preclude a subsequent vision of
Christ. I am not making the argument for an "authentic" picture of Christ,
but neither am I explicitly precluding the possibility that we know what
Christ looks like. It is, ultimately, s secondary question.
>> If a Chinese reading about Christ sees him in his mind in a way that
> to
>> us appears "Chinese," can one chastise him? Maybe he really does
> see
>> Jesus that way. I am not sure that there is a normative way of
>> determining how people see things.
>
> But then the image does not match the prototype.
So? It is a pictorial depicition of the Gospel. It's not some wild
imagining, but just the Gospel in pictorial form. Kissing it is like
kissing the Gospel, which, I am sure you will be quick to remind us, is just
ink and paper...
> Come on, be
> consistent with your Church's teachings!
I am being consistent with what my Church teaches. My Church recognizes as
authoritative the Bible and the Decrees of the Ecumencial Councils.
>> Still, from the Church's 2000 year life with Christ have emerged
> certain
>> general norms that express how the Church externalizes its image of
>> Christ. What is an icon, but the externalization of a pre-existing
> idea
>> in one's mind?
>
> Do you have any 2000 year old icons of Christ?
Do we have any 2000 year old copies of the New Testament? How do we really
know it dates back to the 1st c.? I am not about to argue that the Church's
depiction of Christ has a tradition stretching back to the apostles, but I
am not explicitly precluding such a possibility either. I don't have enough
information.
>> > Also, since Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the hypostasis
> and
>> > image,
>
>> "No distinction between the hypostasis and image"? Again, this is
>> misrepresentation. Orthodox do not consider an icon to be God
>> almighty. What are you saying?
>
> No it is not, See Ouspensky, ["Theology", page 140].
Ouspensky is not saying that an Icon of Christ is the very Christ himself
The council says (Anathema 3): Ei tis ouk aspazetai tautas, eis to onoma tou
kuriou ousas kai twn hagiwn autou, anathmea estw. Icons are "in the name"
of the prototype.
Perhaps one can say that an icon is related to Christ in the way that the
words of the Gospel that describe Christ, or the words of a sermon about
Christ, are related to Christ.
>> > the Church believes that the icon receives divine grace from the
>> > prototype and conveys divine grace to those who venerate it. This
> is
>> > nothing more than crude idolatry!
>
>> Hey presto! You deliberately set it up beforehand as idolatry, and
>> behold! It's idolatry. Bravo.
>
> No, it is what it is.
No, YOU are the idolater, and an intellectually grounded one to boot. That,
sadly, has been established beyond all doubt.
>> > If we see the Divine nature of God in
>> > an icon of Christ, then we see God.
>
>> And we become like you who say that "The people who saw Jesus saw
>> both." Does that mean that it is you who are the idolater?
>
> No, because Jesus was not an idol.
This is getting tedious. Read above, and tell me you did not paint yourself
into an idolatrous corner.
>> > > > How can wood and paint become Spirit, as some in Orthodoxy
>> > > > teach?
>> > >
>> > > I don't hold such views, and I've never come across such views.
>> >
>> > See the above.
>>
>> Even those views (which you have not actually quoted) are just views,
>> not conciliar decrees, and they don't say even that wood and paint
>> become Spirit.
>
> OK.....
Is that all you have to say? The conciliar decrees are what orthodox regard
as authoritative.
>> > It appears that Orthodoxy is affecting you, although not
>> > to the degree that it has affected Al or Joe.
>
>> And what is affecting you, Learner? Always criticizing the religion
> of
>> others from your eagle's nest of carefully guarded denominational
>> anonymity, then playing the victim when they respond in kind? So
>> what's *your* problem?
>
> I have no problem.
It certainly seems like it from this end.
> My beliefs are of no concern.
Of course they are. Context is a necessary ingredient for real discussion,
which, if I may, you don't really seem interested in. Rather, you feel you
have some kind of commission to put us to the test from this position of
supposed invisibility you carefully guard.
> You, and your
> co-religionists should be able to defend what you believe without
> counter-attacking other beliefs. Proving other beliefs incorrect does
> not automatically prove your beliefs.
So you admit, you're here just to attack. But in a cowardly manner, of
course.
> Learner
Leonidas
"> No, but it was revealed in the Old Testament. Rublev is not making up
the
> scene. He has just made the pictorial depiction of Gen. 18. The way one
> kisses the words of the Bible, one can kiss here the words of the Bible
> made
This was supposed to conclude "of the Bible made into a picture."