John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible.
Why did you ignore Isa in regards to what he said about Saint John of Damascus?


God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female
,-LXX, Brenton
God also expressly ruled out any kind of image of things in the air/outerspace/3rd heaven, on the ground/Earth, and in the water too! So why are you being inconsistent?

Exodus 20: 4-5
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

The reality/facts on the ground for early Christianity is one of:


Likeness of things in the air:
(The Dove, the Eagle, Peacocks, Pelicans, The Phoenix.....etc)
Early Christian funerary art from the Roman catacombs depicting the Chi-Roh symbol Christ figure and dove 3rd-5th century CE


3rd century






Likeness of things on the Earth/ground:
(The Lamb, people, trees, palm branches, Pomegranate, the Cross....etc)



















Likeness of things in the water: (fish, anchor.......etc)








The ancient Christians obviously saw things differently.

Also, if God can allow not only the images He specifically commanded:
Ex 25:17-22
"Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites."

Ex 28:31-35
""Make the robe of the ephod entirely of blue cloth, with an opening for the head in its center. There shall be a woven edge like a collar around this opening, so that it will not tear. Make pomegranates of blue, purple and scarlet yarn around the hem of the robe, with gold bells between them. The gold bells and the pomegranates are to alternate around the hem of the robe. Aaron must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the LORD and when he comes out, so that he will not die."

Ex 26:1-6
"Make the tabernacle with ten curtains of finely twisted linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim worked into them by a skilled craftsman. 2 All the curtains are to be the same size—twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide. 3 Join five of the curtains together, and do the same with the other five. 4 Make loops of blue material along the edge of the end curtain in one set, and do the same with the end curtain in the other set. 5 Make fifty loops on one curtain and fifty loops on the end curtain of the other set, with the loops opposite each other. 6 Then make fifty gold clasps and use them to fasten the curtains together so that the tabernacle is a unit."


But also the ones in which he didn't command....like:

1st Kings chapter 6:19-37
He prepared the inner sanctuary within the temple to set the ark of the covenant of the LORD there. The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty wide and twenty high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold, and he also overlaid the altar of cedar.  Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold, and he extended gold chains across the front of the inner sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold. So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary.

In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits—ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. The height of each cherub was ten cubits. He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. He overlaid the cherubim with gold.

On the walls all around the temple, in both the inner and outer rooms, he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. He also covered the floors of both the inner and outer rooms of the temple with gold.

For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood with five-sided jambs. And on the two olive wood doors he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid the cherubim and palm trees with beaten gold. In the same way he made four-sided jambs of olive wood for the entrance to the main hall. He also made two pine doors, each having two leaves that turned in sockets. He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings.


And he built the inner courtyard of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams.

The foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it."



And Chapter 7:
"The Temple's Furnishings
 King Solomon sent to Tyre and brought Huram, whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father was a man of Tyre and a craftsman in bronze. Huram was highly skilled and experienced in all kinds of bronze work. He came to King Solomon and did all the work assigned to him.
He cast two bronze pillars, each eighteen cubits high and twelve cubits around, by line. He also made two capitals of cast bronze to set on the tops of the pillars; each capital was five cubits high. A network of interwoven chains festooned the capitals on top of the pillars, seven for each capital. He made pomegranates in two rows encircling each network to decorate the capitals on top of the pillars. He did the same for each capital. The capitals on top of the pillars in the portico were in the shape of lilies, four cubits high.  On the capitals of both pillars, above the bowl-shaped part next to the network, were the two hundred pomegranates in rows all around. He erected the pillars at the portico of the temple. The pillar to the south he named Jakin and the one to the north Boaz.  The capitals on top were in the shape of lilies. And so the work on the pillars was completed.

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.

He also made ten movable stands of bronze; each was four cubits long, four wide and three high. This is how the stands were made: They had side panels attached to uprights. On the panels between the uprights were lions, bulls and cherubim—and on the uprights as well. Above and below the lions and bulls were wreaths of hammered work. Each stand had four bronze wheels with bronze axles, and each had a basin resting on four supports, cast with wreaths on each side. On the inside of the stand there was an opening that had a circular frame one cubit deep. This opening was round, and with its basework it measured a cubit and a half. Around its opening there was engraving. The panels of the stands were square, not round. The four wheels were under the panels, and the axles of the wheels were attached to the stand. The diameter of each wheel was a cubit and a half. The wheels were made like chariot wheels; the axles, rims, spokes and hubs were all of cast metal.
Each stand had four handles, one on each corner, projecting from the stand. At the top of the stand there was a circular band half a cubit deep. The supports and panels were attached to the top of the stand. He engraved cherubim, lions and palm trees on the surfaces of the supports and on the panels, in every available space, with wreaths all around. This is the way he made the ten stands. They were all cast in the same molds and were identical in size and shape.
He then made ten bronze basins, each holding forty baths and measuring four cubits across, one basin to go on each of the ten stands. He placed five of the stands on the south side of the temple and five on the north. He placed the Sea on the south side, at the southeast corner of the temple. 40 He also made the basins and shovels and sprinkling bowls.
     So Huram finished all the work he had undertaken for King Solomon in the temple of the LORD :

the two pillars;
      the two bowl-shaped capitals on top of the pillars;
      the two sets of network decorating the two bowl-shaped capitals on top of the pillars;

the four hundred pomegranates for the two sets of network (two rows of pomegranates for each network, decorating the bowl-shaped capitals on top of the pillars

the ten stands with their ten basins;

the Sea and the twelve bulls under it;

the pots, shovels and sprinkling bowls.
     All these objects that Huram made for King Solomon for the temple of the LORD were of burnished bronze. The king had them cast in clay molds in the plain of the Jordan between Succoth and Zarethan. Solomon left all these things unweighed, because there were so many; the weight of the bronze was not determined.

Solomon also made all the furnishings that were in the LORD's temple:
      the golden altar;
      the golden table on which was the bread of the Presence;

the lampstands of pure gold (five on the right and five on the left, in front of the inner sanctuary
      the gold floral work and lamps and tongs;

the pure gold basins, wick trimmers, sprinkling bowls, dishes and censers;
      and the gold sockets for the doors of the innermost room, the Most Holy Place, and also for the doors of the main hall of the temple.

When all the work King Solomon had done for the temple of the LORD was finished, he brought in the things his father David had dedicated—the silver and gold and the furnishings—and he placed them in the treasuries of the LORD's temple."



As you can see, King Solomon added images to the Temple of Jerusalem that God didn't command in Exodus and Deuteronomy. And this was something 2nd Temple Judaism preserved for we have a decorated Temple artifact to prove it:





The Temple and things used in it were decorated with images. And so if the early Christians can make images of things in the air/Heavens, Earth/ground, and water.....eventhough the passage in Exodus says we can't, and if God allowed the ancient Jews to do the same in regards to images / decorations that He not only specifically commanded, but also the ones in which He didn't......as seen in 1st Kings! Then why can't the same be done in regards to the passage in Deuteronomy after the Incarnation? It's consistent and it makes perfect reasonable sense!



Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God; 2)The Word became male human flesh.
I already explained why such a thing is not the case.



Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.
How in the world can you call us Nestorian? Don't you know that the nonchalcedonian OO's also embrace Icons?

Also, this is what we mean when we talk about such things:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php (Orthodox Unity document)

Quote:
"When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only."





One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude and making Him like His creation. It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.
No one has seen God back then...at least not face to face..... that was the reason. He was truly seen later in time when He was Incarnate!

Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.
No it's not! The Old Testament also said that no one has seen God's face and still lived. People saw His face when He was Incarnate, and yes they still lived!




Contrary to John D's citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs,
Exodus says don't make images, but it also allowed it, and God allowed King Solomon to make more images that He never commanded.
Just face it! God allowed the Patriarchs to do it in the same manor as He allowed images to be made....both with as well as without His specific commands.

Also you forgot that the ancient Jews venerated the footstool:
The Jews bowed down in front of the footstool in the Temple(Psalm 99:1-5)
Psalm99:1-5
"The LORD reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved! The LORD is great in Zion, And He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Your great and awesome name— He is holy. The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. Exalt the LORD our God, And worship at His footstool— He is holy."

They also bowed before the Kings of Israel:
1st Chronicles 29:20
Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king.

Also, in modern times, Jews still venerate the Torah Scroll, they even venerate the Bible, and the Western Wall while praying and reading Scripture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2ReQgj_zg&feature=player_embedded (Jewish Prayer at the Western Wall, Old City of Jerusalem)  



and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve. He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):
God approved of it. Just like He did with the bowing down before the Kings of Israel and the footstool in the Temple. There are certain degrees/levels of respect/veneration.

The difference is the intent. What are the intentions.

Ok, I'm getting a little tired now. I may or may not deal with the rest at a later time.










ICXC NIKA
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
jnorm888 said:
Robert W said:
Alfred Persson said:
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.
The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA
Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.


 

visitor

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alfred Persson said:
jnorm888 said:
Robert W said:
Alfred Persson said:
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.
The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA
Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.

Our Special Reserve Junior Captain hasn't hit the books like he was told. Correcting his teachers indeed! Learn the word prosopon and then get back to us, Mr. Alban.



Aside: Good grief.


 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,847
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
All, Father? I've yet to seen proof that he has read any of St. John.

I've opened a thread addressing the teachings of Perssonism (misspellt: I apologize. Can a mod fix that in the title?) on icons. Our heresiarch has yet to respond to his "arguments" there.  I'll address his rantings against St. John when we see some proof that he has actually read something of what he is criticizing.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html
 

samkim

High Elder
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
735
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Austin, TX
Why do you accept the canon of the Old Testament that you use to attack us?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
jnorm888 said:
Robert W said:
Alfred Persson said:
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.
The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA
Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.new.html#new
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
visitor said:
Good grief.
Agreed.  100%.

Folks, of what use is continuing this thread?  His clearly stated intention is to engage in a win-lose game of some sort.  Any playing at all is a loss, IMO.  Silence is the only appropriate response.  But now I violate my own counsel.  Bye-bye.
 

visitor

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal, someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.
Prosopon! Look it up! Why are you wasting our time like this? Where is your shame? What you are doing here is wrong. Clearly, you want some kind Judaistical "proof"; it's been given. You wanted proof about St. Damascene's position; you got it. You wanted the theological support of icons; you got it. Your response: simple obstinancy. You don't even respond to your own critics.

But what I really can't figure out is why you are here hurling the anathemas of Councils at us when it's pretty clear that you don't even believe in Councils!

You are misguided and playing games, and I for one would not object if you were banned.



That's it for me. I'm finished with this clown.


Even though [blue]Alfred Persson[/blue] has made his trolling behavior rather obvious, this post wherein you abuse Mr. Perssons and call him a clown is well beyond inappropriate.  We do not tolerate such personal attacks on this forum.  Since you've already been warned about this and have shown no real attempt to mellow your bellicose posting style, your warning will last for 40 days to give you some time to think about how you relate to people on this forum in general.  Be aware also that continued attacks on other posters will result in stiffer penalties, to include post moderation, muting, or banning.  If you think this unfair, please feel free to appeal my decision via private message to Veniamin or to Fr. Chris.

- PeterTheAleut
 

Robert W

Elder
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Vaasa, Finland
Alfred Persson said:
Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?
Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors.  Yes/no?
Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?
Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?
The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Robert W said:
Alfred Persson said:
Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?
Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors.  Yes/no?
Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?
Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?
The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.
Heavy stuff!

Alfred, an idol, whether it be a statue, a painting, a celebrity, or a tree said to have spiritual powers, does not exist in and of itself as an idol. It is made into an idol by those who idolize it. An icon can be made into an idol, but you will have to prove that we confuse an image of Christ with His  Person. This you are incapable of doing, since in St. John of Damascus at least, you will find no evidence for this.

Your arguments and your method of argument betrays you as someone who believes he personally has all the answers. We, however, are not our own instructors, but have the  Holy Fathers for our teachers and the Church for our mother. If you decide you are tired of being alone with your own counsel, you are welcome to join us, but first you will have to humble yourself.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
Now, to the actual task at hand- the Deuteronomy 4:15 passage.  I will bold the gaping hole in your logic.   "And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton"

By the way, the OSB, which you apparently own since you quoted it for your later texts renders this into a more modern grammatical structure as this: "So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16 Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image; the likeness of male or female"  It seems that you merely selected a translation that would appear to back your argument up


No, I want it clear the Septuagint forbids every kind of (EIKWN)

And you evaded my points:

1)John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible as God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

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


2)Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.

There are more, but lets start with these, shall we?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644

Btw, thank you to whoever fixed the spelling on that thread's title.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
Back up your claims, with proof.
Physician, heal thyself.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.
Since Father didn't, are you confessing?

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.
Yes, it is the opposite of its title. On Perssonism:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.
St. John treated, and refuted, your argument a millenium before you repeated someone else's mistakes, and then some.

On Perssonism:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.
No, we weren't. But I (and others) are wondering (and have posted so already) why you claim to refute St. John, when you haven't read him, and don't respond to the refutation of Perssonism.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459644.html#msg459644
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,847
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Alfred Persson said:
Back up your claims, with proof.
I haven't made a claim - you have, and have done so on a bed of quicksand rather than rock.  Your argument is akin to walking into a Physics symposium and claiming that gravity doesn't exist because Newton didn't own a properly calibrated scale.

Alfred Persson said:
Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.
I have no intention of calling you, or thinking of you as, an idiot.

Alfred Persson said:
In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.
I will echo the sentiments of another: quit the martyr complex, will ya?

Alfred Persson said:
But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.
As far as I can tell, no one has insulted you - just pointed out that your argument begins from a flawed starting position, which thus renders it indefensible (making any debate on it unnecessary).  You insist that we engage in a dialogue on your points - but if your points have no direction or sharpness, then they're dull edges instead, and we have no point to engage.  Give us a sharpened point, that we may engage it.

- Oh, and you have yet to respond to the points of discussion directed to your assertions in the following thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Robert W said:
Alfred Persson said:
Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?
Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors.  Yes/no?
Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?
Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?
The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.new.html#new
 

samkim

High Elder
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
735
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Austin, TX
Fr. George said:
Alfred Persson said:
Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.
I have no intention of calling you, or thinking of you as, an idiot.
Speak for yourself, Father.  :angel:

We don't accept such language here - mike
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Robert W said:
Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?
I don't know how icons are Nestorian since they do not use them. The Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian) does not use icons and from what I've heard, even frowns upon them for the most part.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.

Everyone changes the subject to me.

John of Damascus didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.

Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.

I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.

 
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alfred Persson said:
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible. God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

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

You want a reasoned argument: then tell us when were you at Mt. Choreb?  
And when did you hear the Lord speak out of that Mountain?  
And when did you see the Holy Fire?


John
 

samkim

High Elder
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
735
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Austin, TX
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.

Everyone changes the subject to me.

John D didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.

Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.

I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.
Any time you open a Bible, you are opening a collection of Orthodox Catholic books. The Orthodox Catholic Church collected, edited, and canonized the books of the Bible. It is this Church, which published the Bible, which has the authority to interpret the Bible.

You do not belong to this Church. You are bringing ideas foreign to the Church of God. You might as well be a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness. In that you all reject the Orthodox Catholic Church, there is no difference between you.

Since you reject the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Church, it makes no sense for you to read the Bible or consider it authoritative. It is completely absurd to say, "Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and relics and all the rest of it are bosh, but your book is holy!"

In the words of Chesterton, "To say to the priests, 'Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,' is sensible. To say, 'Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street."
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700

Everyone changes the subject to me.
No, you, only giving your opinion, did that.

John D didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.
Since you haven't read him (to judge by your posts), how would you know. Good guess on St. John's demenor, though. Btw, he succeeded.

Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700


I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700
I'm waiting.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,847
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Alfred Persson,

You have yet to respond to the points of discussion directed to your assertions in the following thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

Have a nice day.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
This may be a silly question, but here goes:  if no one responds to the OP's satisfaction, what's the worst that could happen?

In other words, why bother with this at all?  He doesn't really seem interested in a serious discussion.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
theistgal said:
This may be a silly question, but here goes:  if no one responds to the OP's satisfaction, what's the worst that could happen?

In other words, why bother with this at all?  He doesn't really seem interested in a serious discussion.
If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet.  But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate.  He seems to have run out of his repetoire.

Speaking of icons, I've posted a picture that sums up the purpose of Mr. Persson's posts:
http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/mis.jpg
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.msg459700/topicseen.html#msg459700
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Fr. George said:
Alfred Persson,

You have yet to respond to the points of discussion directed to your assertions in the following thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

Have a nice day.
You want I step into a "gauntlet". Kindly tell them all "Keep holding  your breath, he will be here any minute!"

ha ha!

God says "they saw no similitude" , they cannot make an ICON in the likeness of a human male etc. Therefore human flesh is not God's similitude, they have seen that.

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


John of Damascus says Jesus incarnate body is the similitude of God, we can make an icon of Him, this therefore does not violate Deu 4:15f.

As Deu does not allow icons of God in human flesh, the only way an icon of Jesus body does not violate Deut 4:15 is if:

1)The icon's prototype is not God.
2)The icon is not imaging human flesh.


That is my First argument.

Here is the Second:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.


Now  you can decry my pedigree, education, religion, ect, but until you actually treat my argument, nothing you gents say is relevant.

If any reading this suddenly realize how foolish icons are and are wondering what to do next...

Repent of idolatry and any mysticism with it and cry out to the LORD Jesus Christ, "save me a sinner, I beg you", publicly confess you believe He is LORD risen from the dead," for it is  written:

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(Rom 10:9-10 NKJ)

God does not lie, do that, and you are saved. He will guide you what to do next.

I recall obeying that myself, and haven't looked back at my former life wanting anything, these 30+ years Jesus has always been with me, never forsaking me. And He will do the same for you, but you must repent, and confess He is LORD in public, before the eyes of angels and men.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
jnorm888 said:
Robert W said:
Alfred Persson said:
As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:
Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. :D Thank you for the link LBK.
The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA
Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.
What was the position of the Iconophiles? Do you know? Alot of people are trying to be nice to you by telling you to read some more.

Why do you ignore them?




2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.
Why do you keep ignoring the plee of others? They are trying to tell you nicely that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's one Person in Two Natures as well as of Two Natures, not the two natures making the one person.  

Icons image the whole Person in the same way that our blessed Mother is the Mother of the whole Person.

We are not confusing natures by calling our blessed Mother Theotokos just as we are not confusing natures when it comes to the Icons of Christ.

Why? Because the Person is a Divine Person! Both before as well as after the Incarnation! Thus one Divine Person in two Natures.

You seem to be confusing Person and Nature. Before the Incarnation the Divine Person only had one Nature and that was the Divine Nature.

At the Incarnation the Divine Person added a second Nature, and so it is one Person in two Natures.


Alfred Persson,


If you were present when our Lord was born, would you be able to worship him? Would you be able to worship Him as an Infant?

Was doubting Thomas in error when he touched his flesh and said "My Lord and My God"? According to you he was....or must have been!

John 20:27-29
"Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”



Do you worship the Person or Just the Divine Nature only? Also, did God Incarnate die on the Cross?

You seem to be confusing Person and Nature.







ICXC NIKA
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
ialmisry said:
If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet.  But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate.
Well, I think it's probably a little too late to avoid polluting the Internet.  ;D

Also, if you Google the OP's name you'll find that he's been polluting an awful lot of other religious boards/blogs/discussions besides this one, for a few years, so one more isn't going to make that much difference. ::)  ;)
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Let's start over from the beginning.

Alfred Persson said:
John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible.
You should make reference to what St John wrote. Here is a good starting point.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xvi.html

God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton
It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God;
It is not a denial that Jesus is God, only an affirmation that Jesus has a visible form.

2)The Word became male human flesh.
Depicting the Word as human flesh affirms that it was the Word that became flesh. If the Word had not become flesh, then it would be improper to depict Him as such, but He did so we do.

Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.
We depict the person, not the nature. The Second Person of the Trinity has a physical human body, so we depict Him with one.

One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude
Icons use visual aspects to represent the person, not just their flesh.

and making Him like His creation.
The Second Person of the Trinity did become like His creation in the incarnation.

It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.
God had not revealed himself to them in a visible form. That is why they could not use one to depict Him.

Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.
The spirit was that they could not depict God in a form that they did not know Him to exist in. We now know the Second Person of the Trinity to exist as a human person. That is why He is depicted as such.

Contrary to John D's citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve.
They were commanded to give the greatest amount of honor and respect to Ark of the Covenant. It was so holy that they could not so much as touch it out of respect. According to 1Kings 8:30, people were to pray towards the temple. In 1Chron 16:4, David commanded levites to miniter before the Ark. in verse 36 (LXX) or 37 (MT) depending on which translation you read, this was done continually.

He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):
That verse was referring to the Athenians who made images of false gods out of ignorance of who the true God is. God was only willing to wink at their error of they were to repent from seving their false gods and serve Him upon hearing the truth, because after that they were no longer ignorant.

Abraham planted a grove

Gen 21:33 "Then Abraham planted a field at the Well of Oath, and there he called on the name of the Lord."-Orthodox Study Bible

33. Abraham planted a grove—Hebrew, “of tamarisks,” in which sacrificial worship was offered, as in a roofless temple.
[1]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Ge 21:33). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Jacob set up a pillar

Gen 18:16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "The Lord is in this place, and I did not know it."
Gen 18:17 So he was afraid and said "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."
Gen 18:18 Now Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone he put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it.-Orthodox Study Bible

This veneration was not acceptable to God as He later forbade both in Deuteronomy 16:21f

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.
Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.
The groves and pillars spoken of in Deut. were used by other nations for worshipping their false gods. God commanded these things not to be built because of the association these things had with false gods. Also at this point, they were to go to the tabernacle to make their sacrifices to God and nowhere else. This is about how and where it is acceptable to worship God at that time, not about how God can or cannot be depicted.

It's real simple. God became a man, so we depict Him as one.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred,

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic.  And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.
Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

Back when I was in school.....a very long time ago, the professors knew who did and didn't do their homework! They knew who did and didn't put the time in to actually know the stuff they were talking about.

I remember times in where I was scared to ask a question in Calculus because I knew I didn't put in the work, and the teachers would always scold us whenever we asked a question or stated something.

They knew the stuff, while we didn't, and they were able to tell if one did the hard work by putting in the time or not.


But for some reason, you are not seeing this.








ICXC NIKA
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Alfred Persson said:
I recall obeying that myself,
Were you ever at a point in your life where you did accept the theology of Icons? Just curious.

and haven't looked back at my former life wanting anything, these 30+ years Jesus has always been with me, never forsaking me. And He will do the same for you, but you must repent, and confess He is LORD in public, before the eyes of angels and men.
Icons do proclaim that Jesus is LORD. That's what the "OwN" you see in most icons means. It's the name of God given to Moses on Mt. Sainai in greek.

I'm sorry you fail to see us as having Christ.  :(
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Melodist said:
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.
Thanks for responding to the argument.

You  argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.

Therefore your exegesis is impossible.

Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including those imaging human flesh.

Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.

So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial 1)He is God, or 2)came in human flesh.


The rest of what you say is germane only if you can refute the above, so until then, lets focus on Deut 4:15f.
 

Paisius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Florida
Thankful said:
Thank you for this. As a new convert, this is the clearest, most detailed explanation I have seen and I appreciated reading it. I'd understood the part about the incarnation and the ability to have icons because of that, but I hadn't seen this explanation based on the passage in Deuteronomy.

And Thankful don't let anyone fool you. Modern Protestantism, just like Byzantine iconoclasm, is nothing more than Platonic, neo-pagan humanism couched in Christian terminology. It was and is a lie about God and about man.



In Christ
Joe
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The kontakion (sermon-hymn) for the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, commemorated on the first Sunday of Great Lent:

The indefinable Word of the Father made Himself definable, having taken flesh from you, O Mother of God, and having refashioned the soiled image of man to its former state, has suffused it with divine beauty. Confessing salvation, we proclaim it in deed and word.

From St John of Damascus' treatise On the Defense of the Holy Images (which Alfred Persson does not seem to have read and absorbed yet):

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

St John also responded to the arguments of those who regarded Old Testament prohibitions of religious imagery as also applying to the Church:

Since the invisible One became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

And this, surely a masterpiece of brevity which yet contains a such great wealth of truth:

Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, 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 venerating the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

To deny the place of iconography is to deny the very incarnation of God. This was the fatal flaw of the iconoclasts. Sadly, successive eras have repeatedly revived iconoclasm in various forms, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.



16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton
This is talking about the ancient Jews before the Incarnation.


You  argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.
Of course they saw human males, but they never saw God as a human in the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb.

Similitude = visible likeness, image, a point of comparison......etc.

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense to me. The text seems to say that God didn't want them to make a human likeness of Him because they never saw Him.

And you keep ignoring most things that everyone is saying. You are starting to make this thread of yours pointless and fruitless.


Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including those imaging human flesh.

In the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb. That is the context. I don't know if you know this but Revelation is progressive. We see this throughout the Old Testament as well as how the New Testament reflects on the Old.


Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.
You reason like a kid. It's obvious from the text itself that it is talking about "In the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb"

The context is not talking about the Incarnation for it didn't happen back then.

So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial 1)He is God, or 2)came in human flesh.
It's an affirmation that God became Incarnate!

But I'm sure you will ignore all this just like you do most posts! Stop setting up strawmen













ICXC NIKA
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Alfred Persson said:
Melodist said:
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.
Thanks for responding to the argument.

You  argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.
Not exactly. I argue against any image, because God had not revealed Himself as having any image. This would at that time include human males.

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.
They did see human males, but God had not revealed Himself as one until the incarnation. They could not use what was not revealed to them.

Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including human flesh.
Because He had not yet revealed Himself as a man having human flesh.

Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.
Only if it depicts a similitude of God that He has not revealed Himself as. They could not depict God as a human male because God had not revealed Himself to them as a human male. God has revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, who is a human male, so we depict Him as such. The icon is of Christ, the person, not all of male humanity.

So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial He is God, or came in human flesh.
An icon is of a person, not just a nature, not just a body.

The rest of what you say is germane only if you can refute the above, so until then, lets focus on Deut 4:15f.
So let's focus on the above, that is if that really is the key to this discussion.

What do you think an icon represents?

Do you understand that icons say something theological?

Maybe this might help as a point of reference for this discussion.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
jnorm888 said:
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.
If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John of Damascus' rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.

 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
jnorm888 said:
Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:
This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.
If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ



If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.


Pick one.
What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.



1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ
There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15
And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:


When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this! Just as you ignore the context of Scripture when it says "ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb"

The Incarnation happened AFTER that day in which the Lord Spoke to them in Choreb. Therefore it is ok to make Icons of God Incarnate.

And so the difference is time......Revelation is progressive!







ICXC NIKA
 
Top