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

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
You keep going back to this argument, ignoring outright all the points made about how it is not applicable in this discussion.  Oh, well - you're making a poor apologetic because of it.  If you're going to disagree with the premise of that thread, you may as well do so in that thread.
It was in this thread you asked me to check it out, so I answered you in this thread.

I told you I didn't read past those opening words, because it begged the question.
This sentiment only belies that you are not up to the challenge of your self-proclaimed mission.  Too bad.

Alfred Persson said:
THIS thread is discussing Deut 4: throughout, and my RICH apologetic is standing tall, undiminished by the evasions and iconography posted.
Your poor apologetic has been shredded in multiple places, and your response is to repeat it again, rather than finding material to patch it up.  It had a promising beginning, with multiple biblical angles; but once it was discovered to be founded on some of the poorest exegesis (rather, "great" isegesis) we've seen on this site, it was rather simple to slay it.  In the world of giants, your dwarfish argument is unable to claim the throne.

I'm wondering why you're surprised that icons would be posted in a thread about iconography.  It is a strange thing, and yet you've brought it up multiple times - you probably haven't done this before (debating True Christians on Ancient Christian Traditions), which is why you seem so surprised by it.

Alfred Persson said:
THAT thread should have been against the rules, the use of my name makes it a personal attack.
You are still unaware of what a "personal attack is."  Too bad.  The use of your name is only to clearly attribute real teachings that you have said to you, just as when someone says "Palamism," they are referring to the doctrines and teachings revealed and clarified by St. Gregory Palamas.

Alfred Persson said:
I reserve the right to go there in the future, to slay the dragon...but for now, this thread is all I want to handle.
Based on your track record, the above should probably read, "I reserve the right to go there in the future, to be slayed as a dragon...but for now, this thread is all I am unable to handle."

 

Attachments

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Alfred Persson said:
Who is the prototype of the serpent?
It depends; the prototype of the form is the serpent, the prototype of the power is God.

Alfred Persson said:
In theology (also science), for conclusions to be sound, one does not compare dissimilar things.
I suppose this all depends on how you conclude things to be dissimilar, a charge that must be proven and not postulated.

Alfred Persson said:
To illustrate, you cannot prove what an apple tastes like, by biting into an orange, the incompatible properties relevant to taste, make the comparison unsound.
Well, to a point, but one can make negative assertions about the taste of an apple through the experience of the orange (e.g. "the apple does not have the citrus tang of the orange," "the apple is not soft like the orange," etc.).  To a skilled theologian or scientist, statements of fact about one thing can indeed be made using a dissimilar thing as a reference point.  However, since that is not what I am doing, I do not know what you are so "hung up" on.  See my first point above.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Fr. George said:
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
You keep going back to this argument, ignoring outright all the points made about how it is not applicable in this discussion.  Oh, well - you're making a poor apologetic because of it.  If you're going to disagree with the premise of that thread, you may as well do so in that thread.
It was in this thread you asked me to check it out, so I answered you in this thread.

I told you I didn't read past those opening words, because it begged the question.
This sentiment only belies that you are not up to the challenge of your self-proclaimed mission.  Too bad.

Alfred Persson said:
THIS thread is discussing Deut 4: throughout, and my RICH apologetic is standing tall, undiminished by the evasions and iconography posted.
Your poor apologetic has been shredded in multiple places, and your response is to repeat it again, rather than finding material to patch it up.  It had a promising beginning, with multiple biblical angles; but once it was discovered to be founded on some of the poorest exegesis (rather, "great" isegesis) we've seen on this site, it was rather simple to slay it.  In the world of giants, your dwarfish argument is unable to claim the throne.

I'm wondering why you're surprised that icons would be posted in a thread about iconography.  It is a strange thing, and yet you've brought it up multiple times - you probably haven't done this before (debating True Christians on Ancient Christian Traditions), which is why you seem so surprised by it.

Alfred Persson said:
THAT thread should have been against the rules, the use of my name makes it a personal attack.
You are still unaware of what a "personal attack is."  Too bad.  The use of your name is only to clearly attribute real teachings that you have said to you, just as when someone says "Palamism," they are referring to the doctrines and teachings revealed and clarified by St. Gregory Palamas.

Alfred Persson said:
I reserve the right to go there in the future, to slay the dragon...but for now, this thread is all I want to handle.
Based on your track record, the above should probably read, "I reserve the right to go there in the future, to be slayed as a dragon...but for now, this thread is all I am unable to handle."
I was warned about shortening John of Damascus, any nickname of him is prohibited.

Perssonism is a disparaging nickname referring to my statements, while the shortened form of John of Damascus wasn't at all, yet I was warned.

BUT don't misunderstand, I prefer unmoderated boards where people call me all sorts of things...I don't care...often I consider it all joy. So leave the thread there, don't delete it, I reserve the right to go there eventually.

You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.





 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alfred Persson said:
You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.
The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
LBK said:
Alfred Persson said:
You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.
The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.
They beg the question what the apostolic church believed, they are too far removed.

Its too hard to prove a negative, therefore the burden of proof is on those who affirm icon veneration in the apostolic church.

The best I can do is point out there isn't any recorded.

I can suppose it didn't exist as its not mentioned at all, either for or against. But that isn't proof one way or the other.

So in any court of law, the burden of proof is on those who claim there is icon veneration occurring in the apostolic church.

An analogy, in the USA, one does not have to prove innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt.

 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,689
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Alfred Persson said:
LBK said:
Alfred Persson said:
You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.
The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.
They beg the question what the apostolic church believed, they are too far removed.

As LBK noted:

Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul?
The disciple of the Apostle Paul isn't early enough/apostolic enough for you?
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Schultz said:
Alfred Persson said:
LBK said:
Alfred Persson said:
You cannot find veneration of icons in the New Testament, nor does it appear in the earliest "fathers." While this is an argument from silence it is sound given the importance of icons to the Orthodox today...if the apostolic church held similar views, it would be discussed just as the Orthodox do today...if the waterfall is there, its so unlikely it be silent that its impossible.

The burden of proof is not on those who say it doesn't exist as its not mentioned.

Its on those who say it does exist, because its impossible to prove a negative.

If I say "I can throw this stone into outer space," the burden of proving I can is not on those doubting the claim, its on me who made it.

You say the early church practiced icon veneration, prove it in the Bible and sub apostolic church fathers.

No later for that would beg the question if the apostolic church venerated icons.
The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa early enough for you? What about the 4th century St John Chrysostom? Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul? Is he early enough a Father for you?

And no, I won't do your homework for you. Read St John of Damascus' treatise, where St John quotes from these, and other Fathers and saints. Two online links to this document have already been provided.
They beg the question what the apostolic church believed, they are too far removed.

As LBK noted:

Or of St Dionysius the Areopagite, the FIRST-CENTURY Athenian converted by Apostle Paul?
The disciple of the Apostle Paul isn't early enough/apostolic enough for you?
What's the quote, is it the real St Dionysius?

In the early 6th century, a series of famous writings of a mystical nature, employing Neoplatonic language to elucidate Christian theological and mystical ideas, was ascribed to the Areopagite.[2]  They have long been recognized as pseudepigrapha and are now attributed to "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite".

Dionysius was also popularly mis-identified with the martyr of Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris, Saint Denis.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_the_Areopagite
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You want proof that icons were venerated since the earliest time of Christianity? Look no further than the veneration of the Mandylion, also known as The Image Not Made By Hands, also known as Acheiropoeitos.

Christ Himself made this image, by pressing a cloth to His face. Miraculously, an image of His face was imprinted on the cloth. This cloth was sent to King Abgar of the Osroenes, who was stricken by a terrible disease, and who had sent word to the Apostles imploring them to send Jesus to him. The Lord was, for whatever reason, unable to travel to the king, so He sent the cloth. By praying before this miraculous image, an image of the Lord Himself, the king was healed.

Christ Himself made an icon of Himself. Alfred, deal with it.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
LBK said:
You want proof that icons were venerated since the earliest time of Christianity? Look no further than the veneration of the Mandylion, also known as The Image Not Made By Hands, also known as Acheiropoeitos.

Christ Himself made this image, by pressing a cloth to His face. Miraculously, an image of His face was imprinted on the cloth. This cloth was sent to King Abgar of the Osroenes, who was stricken by a terrible disease, and who had sent word to the Apostles imploring them to send Jesus to him. The Lord was, for whatever reason, unable to travel to the king, so He sent the cloth. By praying before this miraculous image, an image of the Lord Himself, the king was healed.

Christ Himself made an icon of Himself. Alfred, deal with it.
That's not an sub apostolic early church father or a Bible writer.

It has all the appearance of myth.

Icon veneration is central to Orthodox worship, you can hardly be silent about them for long, like breathing, its something the Orthodox must do to live.

Therefore the absence of icon veneration in the NT and sub apostolic church fathers is weighty evidence icon veneration didn't exist in the apostolic church.

 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Alfred Persson said:
I was warned about shortening John of Damascus, any nickname of him is prohibited.
Academic discourse - it's not a difficult concept, my friend.

Alfred Persson said:
Perssonism is a disparaging nickname referring to my statements, while the shortened form of John of Damascus wasn't at all, yet I was warned.
I don't consider it a disparaging nickname - it is a clear attribution of a unique theological position (especially on this forum) to the person who postulated it, something that has been done on a number of occasions throughout history.

Alfred Persson said:
BUT don't misunderstand, I prefer unmoderated boards where people call me all sorts of things...I don't care...often I consider it all joy. So leave the thread there, don't delete it, I reserve the right to go there eventually.
I hope you do.

Alfred Persson said:
You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.
We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.

Alfred Persson said:
Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
It is clearly not evasion in this case, as we have never pointed to a library, but rather a series of texts which are brief and to the point.

I don't think you're too familiar with academic debate, are you?  In academic debate, we use tracts and not one-line-quotes to prove and disprove points; we synthesize the information to support or refute arguments; we read materials in the hope of finding support or weapon.  And, in the end, we acknowledge truth.  You have been presented with a number of relatively short quotes (a few paragraphs here and there) which you have refused to read and refused to respond to - in that context, it is impossible to continue a dialogue with you, since you incessantly insist on dictating terms of debate that do not match what the rest of us are accustomed to in civilized and academic debate.  I find it incredible, then, that in the face of this refusal to conform to usual academic standards, that you continue to assert some sort of superior argument, even though it has been debunked and de-clawed and euthanized  multiple times.  And when this is pointed out to you, you simply throw your hands up and scream, "prove it!"  My patience wears thin with your anorexic apologetic and your mule-ish refusal to read what others have posted.  There are dozens of posts you have not responded to, multiple arguments that you have admittedly skipped over because you couldn't stomach the first lines of the post, and, simply, too many unpatched holes in your argument to render it seaworthy anymore.

If I have the couple of hours required to point out all the flaws in your argument that have been exposed by others, I will.  But I can guarantee that you will not read the lengthy post that will result, and you will not address the points made therein.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Fr. George said:
Alfred Persson said:
You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.
Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.


Fact is, nothing I've said has been refuted...its all been buried under icons, ad hominem, and tangential material.

That is why you won't copy paste my argument with its precise refutation...none were given.

You are at a loss how to respond...admit it.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alfred Persson said:
Therefore the absence of icon veneration in the NT and sub apostolic church fathers is weighty evidence icon veneration didn't exist in the apostolic church.
There are plenty of icons in the Roman catacombs. Some date even to the first century, well within the apostolic period you keep mentioning. And the walls of the church at Dura Europos are covered in icons.

Deal with it.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred Persson said:
You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.
Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
Like you have evaded reading St. John of Damscus, and yet claim to refute him.

What, you don't know how to click a link?  too hard?

Of course, most those who read these posts of pollution are not so handicapped, so they will go there and clear there mind of the veil of Moses.

You are acting towards Father like a student who asks the liberarian for help when he really wants the librarian to do the research and write the term paper for him.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
LBK said:
Alfred Persson said:
Therefore the absence of icon veneration in the NT and sub apostolic church fathers is weighty evidence icon veneration didn't exist in the apostolic church.
There are plenty of icons in the Roman catacombs. Some date even to the first century, well within the apostolic period you keep mentioning. And the walls of the church at Dura Europos are covered in icons.

Deal with it.
They beg the question whether they were venerated as the Orthodox do their icons.

I have paintings...if thousands of years from now, an archeologist found them and said I venerated images, he would be sorely mistaken.

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
ialmisry said:
which appear at the above link, on the more appropriate thread for discussing your views.
Alfred, here is the link: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

It is a thread discussing Icons in general, not tied to St. John of Damascus.  You will find in it fertile ground.
I only read "There are different kinds of image" and had to stop. It begs the question that all kinds of icon of God are forbidden:

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 (pasan eikona), the likeness of male or female,
(Deu 4:15-16 LXE)
From the thread in question:
Shanghaiski said:
Alfred seems to find the incarnation horribly inconvenient.
Alfred Persson said:
An analogy:

"There are different kinds of sacrifice" begs the question that all sacrifice that might be leavened is forbidden to be brought to the Lord.

LXE  Leviticus 2:11 Ye shall not leaven any sacrifice (pasan thusian) which ye shall bring to the Lord (Lev 2:11 LXE)
ialmisry said:
ialmisry said:
"Eating the Passover (sacrificial lamb)" is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX) for celebrating Passover, but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover.  Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics.  Which is a problem, because artos is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare artos is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.
As Pravoslavbob pointed out, St. Paul is speaking in metaphors, actually turning them on their head.  To not see that, does violence to the text.
Cleopas said:
Per Paul, He is both.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?
because He has the leaven of divinity which He shares with us as the Bread that has come down from Heaven.  And comes down: hence the iconostais where the Royal Doors (the middle doors, which open up to the altar) are flanked by the icon of Christ and the Theotokos-how He came down-on the one side and on the other-the Pantocrator "Christ Almighty"-how He will come down on the other.  In the middle is the altar, on which He comes down in the Eucharist, now: an image that dates from the days of Justin Martyr (from 2nd century Palestine). Christ Himself identifies His Kingdom with leaven.   He nowhere uses the rabbinic metaphor of leaven=sin. Nor, for that matter, does the rest of the NT.  And the Church, the New Lump leavened by Christ has always had as her praxis the use of the new leaven in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the true Passover sacrifice sacrificed for us.  No, St. Paul does NOT identify Christ and the Eucharist with unleavened bread.  Otherwise he would have used azyma instead of artos in Chapter 10, and we would be speaking of the "breaking of the mazzo" instead of the "breaking of the bread."  St. Paul, his friend St. Ignatius, their follower St. John and the rest of us have held to the symbolism that Christ Himself teaches on leaven in the Gospels.  As for Judaising symbolism
Alfred Persson said:
This prohibition did not change with the New Testament:

NKJ  Romans 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image(eikonos) made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Rom 1:23 NKJ)
From the thread in question:
ialmisry said:
Rom 1:19 That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Rom. 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the icon of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
16:25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.
Alfred Persson said:
It is sophistry to claim Christ's incarnate body was not corruptible therefore this doesn't apply, Deut 4:16 forbade "any kind of icon" in the likeness of male human flesh, corruptible or not.
The reading for Tranfiguration: 2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
And from the thread in question:
ialmisry said:
2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
3:1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:22Professing himself to be wise, he became a fool, 28And even as he did not like to retain God in his knowledge, God gave him over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;(paraphrased).

It is the sophistry of the veil of Moses that insists that Deutroomy bans the Holy Icons.

Alfred Persson said:
All who image Jesus to worship Him thereby deny Jesus is God, for Deut 4:16 expressly rules out every possible image of God for worship.
Yes, the Deuteronomy mantra of Perssonism. We're still not worshipping your sacred cow.

Alfred Persson said:
All who image Jesus to worship Him claiming His Incarnate flesh has made His similitude sensible thereby deny Jesus came in human flesh as all icons in the likeness of human flesh are forbidden in Deut 4:16.
The iconoclast mantra of Perssonism, often repeated, never substantiated.
ialmisry said:
The Word took flesh and dwellt among us, and we behold His glory, the glory of the icon of the invisible God, Who took the likeness of man, in Which it was the good pleasure of the Father for the fullness of the Godhead to dwell therein, so that seeing Him we see God. John 1: 14, 14:9; Colossians 1:15, 19.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
ialmisry said:
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred Persson said:
You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.
Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
Like you have evaded reading St. John of Damscus, and yet claim to refute him.

What, you don't know how to click a link?  too hard?

Of course, most those who read these posts of pollution are not so handicapped, so they will go there and clear there mind of the veil of Moses.

You are acting towards Father like a student who asks the liberarian for help when he really wants the librarian to do the research and write the term paper for him.
Evasion. Copy paste my precise argument, and its precise refutation...

If that is found everywhere in this thread and elsewhere, it should be easy for you to do.

Do it now and prove I've been refuted, or admit not one of you has addressed my arguments.

I don't mind...I trust God's elect will be made aware of the truth.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
ialmisry said:
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
ialmisry said:
which appear at the above link, on the more appropriate thread for discussing your views.
Alfred, here is the link: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29149.0.html

It is a thread discussing Icons in general, not tied to St. John of Damascus.  You will find in it fertile ground.
I only read "There are different kinds of image" and had to stop. It begs the question that all kinds of icon of God are forbidden:

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 (pasan eikona), the likeness of male or female,
(Deu 4:15-16 LXE)
From the thread in question:
Shanghaiski said:
Alfred seems to find the incarnation horribly inconvenient.
Alfred Persson said:
An analogy:

"There are different kinds of sacrifice" begs the question that all sacrifice that might be leavened is forbidden to be brought to the Lord.

LXE  Leviticus 2:11 Ye shall not leaven any sacrifice (pasan thusian) which ye shall bring to the Lord (Lev 2:11 LXE)
ialmisry said:
ialmisry said:
"Eating the Passover (sacrificial lamb)" is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX) for celebrating Passover, but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover.  Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics.  Which is a problem, because artos is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare artos is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.
As Pravoslavbob pointed out, St. Paul is speaking in metaphors, actually turning them on their head.  To not see that, does violence to the text.
Cleopas said:
Per Paul, He is both.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?
because He has the leaven of divinity which He shares with us as the Bread that has come down from Heaven.  And comes down: hence the iconostais where the Royal Doors (the middle doors, which open up to the altar) are flanked by the icon of Christ and the Theotokos-how He came down-on the one side and on the other-the Pantocrator "Christ Almighty"-how He will come down on the other.  In the middle is the altar, on which He comes down in the Eucharist, now: an image that dates from the days of Justin Martyr (from 2nd century Palestine). Christ Himself identifies His Kingdom with leaven.   He nowhere uses the rabbinic metaphor of leaven=sin. Nor, for that matter, does the rest of the NT.  And the Church, the New Lump leavened by Christ has always had as her praxis the use of the new leaven in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the true Passover sacrifice sacrificed for us.  No, St. Paul does NOT identify Christ and the Eucharist with unleavened bread.  Otherwise he would have used azyma instead of artos in Chapter 10, and we would be speaking of the "breaking of the mazzo" instead of the "breaking of the bread."  St. Paul, his friend St. Ignatius, their follower St. John and the rest of us have held to the symbolism that Christ Himself teaches on leaven in the Gospels.  As for Judaising symbolism
Alfred Persson said:
This prohibition did not change with the New Testament:

NKJ  Romans 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image(eikonos) made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Rom 1:23 NKJ)
From the thread in question:
ialmisry said:
Rom 1:19 That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Rom. 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the icon of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
16:25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.
Alfred Persson said:
It is sophistry to claim Christ's incarnate body was not corruptible therefore this doesn't apply, Deut 4:16 forbade "any kind of icon" in the likeness of male human flesh, corruptible or not.
The reading for Tranfiguration: 2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
And from the thread in question:
ialmisry said:
2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
3:1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:22Professing himself to be wise, he became a fool, 28And even as he did not like to retain God in his knowledge, God gave him over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;(paraphrased).

It is the sophistry of the veil of Moses that insists that Deutroomy bans the Holy Icons.

Alfred Persson said:
All who image Jesus to worship Him thereby deny Jesus is God, for Deut 4:16 expressly rules out every possible image of God for worship.
Yes, the Deuteronomy mantra of Perssonism. We're still not worshipping your sacred cow.

Alfred Persson said:
All who image Jesus to worship Him claiming His Incarnate flesh has made His similitude sensible thereby deny Jesus came in human flesh as all icons in the likeness of human flesh are forbidden in Deut 4:16.
The iconoclast mantra of Perssonism, often repeated, never substantiated.
ialmisry said:
The Word took flesh and dwellt among us, and we behold His glory, the glory of the icon of the invisible God, Who took the likeness of man, in Which it was the good pleasure of the Father for the fullness of the Godhead to dwell therein, so that seeing Him we see God. John 1: 14, 14:9; Colossians 1:15, 19.
Copy pasting ad hominem and tangential material beneath my statements is NOT posting my precise argument about icons, and its precise refutation.

Frankly, your replies never address my points, they evade my points by changing the subject.


If I say "2+2=4" and you reply "Two apples in a barrel" you did not refute my arithmetic.



 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,689
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
If you are getting no satisfaction from our arguments and feel that you never will, why are you still here?  Why haven't you shaken the dust off of your proverbial feet and gone elsewhere?  Please don't lie to me and tell me it is because you love us and want to see us saved.

God forgive me, but you're here to hear the bleating of your own tongue, so to speak.  I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your MO is to invade messageboards, make a nuisance of yourself, get banned, and then heap praises upon yourself about your perfect knowledge of the Lord's mind because you are one His elect.

The only thing that will get you banned here is flagrant violations of forum policy, a policy that you (supposedly) read and agreed to upon registration. 

Repeatedly braying like a stubborn mule will not.
 

theistgal

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sunny Southern Cal
(sigh)  Oh, Alfred - I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your sincerity, but ... you really ARE here to proselytize, not discuss, this issue.  I'm disappointed in you. :(
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
ialmisry said:
Alfred Persson said:
Fr. George said:
Alfred Persson said:
You claim my apologetic has been shredded many times...I dispute that. Prove it.

Cite my statement, and the precise refutation of it.

Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
We've played this song-and-dance before; there are dozens of posts over 13 pages that refute your points.  I know what will happen: I will quote the posts, you will dodge and claim there is no refutation.  You've been doing the same song and dance the entire time.
Referring me to a thread is absurd, that's not proof...its like pointing to a public library and claiming "the refutation is there!" That ain't proof, its evasion.
Like you have evaded reading St. John of Damscus, and yet claim to refute him.

What, you don't know how to click a link?  too hard?

Of course, most those who read these posts of pollution are not so handicapped, so they will go there and clear there mind of the veil of Moses.

You are acting towards Father like a student who asks the liberarian for help when he really wants the librarian to do the research and write the term paper for him.
Evasion. Copy paste my precise argument, and its precise refutation...
As everyone else can see, I've do so repeatedly.

Alfred Persson said:
If that is found everywhere in this thread and elsewhere, it should be easy for you to do.
ialmisry said:
Alfred Persson said:
ialmisry said:
Alfred Persson said:
Won't anyone address my argument?
St. John already has.  You invoked his name to smear him.  Numbers 12:8
Here.  I practically have to put the nipple in your mouth:
Three treatises on the divine images By John (of Damascus, Saint.), Andrew Louth
http://books.google.com/books?id=x_U1mtafEPMC&pg=PA90&dq=John+of+Damascus+on+the+divine+images+4:15&hl=en&ei=65hXTM3QBIyJnQfpnM3YCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks anyway...
I didn't post for links.
So you posted without knowing what you are talking about.
You brought up St. John.  You haven't addressed him.  If you wanted us to address your novel interpretations, you should have made a thread on that.
I'm not going to do your sucking for you as well.
ialmisry said:
I'm not sure I'm up for so tedious a task right now, there being so many.  Lord willing, maybe later. Btw, the string of posts started here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=460320;topic=29148.135;sesc=fffcbc099c68a161ff4e3689dcc06cda
resulted form me cutting the meat of one post into bite sizes.  Evidently you can't rush someone, who isn't ready for solids, off of the milk.
Alfred Persson said:
Do it now and prove I've been refuted, or admit not one of you has addressed my arguments.

I don't mind...I trust God's elect will be made aware of the truth.
which is why anyone who is not perishing can see that we have addressed every one of Perssonism's "arguments," and proved them wanting.
 
Top