# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Icons are not idols

## heavenlyboy34

I have seen the universal church (both Orthodox and Catholic) accused of idolatry because of the icons we use around teh interwebz, and on these forums, IIRC.  This article addresses the issue quite well, IMO. (though specific to Orthodoxy) Hope you enjoy. 

http://www.stgeorgeaz.com/index.php?id=55
Do Orthodox icons border on idolatry?

In Orthodox Christianity, icons are never worshipped, but they are honored and venerated.  Worship is reserved for God alone.  The second Commandment says, "you shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness or anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4-5).  The warnings here are, first, that we are not to depict images of things which are limited to heaven and therefore unseen, and second, we never bow down to or worship created, earthly things.  Does this condemn all imagery in worship?  The Scriptures tell us emphatically no!

Just five chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God, as recorded in Exodus 25, gives his divine blueprint, if you will, for the tabernacle.  Specifically in verses 19 and 20 he commands images of cherubim to be placed above the mercy seat.  Also, God promises to meet and speak with us through this imagery! (Ex.25:22)

In Exodus 26:1, Israel was commanded in no uncertain terms to weave "artistic designs of cherubim" into the tabernacle curtains.  Are these images?  Absolutely!  In fact they could well be called Old Testament icons.  And they are images which God commanded to be made.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Orthodox iconography never creates images of God the Father.  If no one has seen God, then how can he be portrayed? To do so would border on idolatry.  For, "no one has ever see God" (Jn.1:18; cf Ex.33:20).  Similarly, the Holy Spirit is never represented except as a dove, which we receive in the Baptismal accounts from Scripture. 

The question, however, remains of what to do with the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God.  Can he be depicted in holy icons?  Realizing that because no one has seen God the Father and does not know what he "looks like," he cannot be portrayed.  However, the Son of God became a human being and can therefore be depicted in holy images since we know what humanity looks like.  To deny the embodiment of Christ in image is tantamount to the refutation of the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming human).  Simply put, because God became man, we are able to portray images of him for veneration.  One will notice that no icon of Christ is a portrait trying to capture the subtleties of what the Lord looked like, but rather a symbolic representation of the Lord to teach us that in truth, God did "empty himself and take on the form of a servant for our salvation" (Phil.2:7). 

Analogous to this is the representation in sacred icons of the saints.  These men and women were faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ until their last breath and remain for us as examples of the Christian ideal.  Their images offer us encouragement and renewed hope that to walk in the newness of life is possible!  Again, no icons or the saints themselves, for that matterare ever worshipped.  God alone is worthy to be praised.  But we venerate their images and ask for their intercessory prayers that God might have mercy on our souls!

----------


## TER

> Similarly, the Holy Spirit is never represented except as a dove, which we receive in the Baptismal accounts from Scripture.


Nice summary HB.  Thanks for posting!  I would only correct the above statement, as the Holy Spirit is also represented as a tongue of fire as can be seen in the icon of Pentecost!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nice summary HB.  Thanks for posting!  I would only correct the above statement, as the Holy Spirit is also represented as a tongue of fire as can be seen in the icon of Pentecost!


n/p  ~hugs~  I wish I could take credit for it, but it was published on St George's website. (link in the OP)

----------


## erowe1

On the claims that no icons are ever worshipped, I have seen people worship images that are supposed to be of Jesus himself.

----------


## TER

> On the claims that no icons are ever worshipped, I have seen people worship images that are supposed to be of Jesus himself.


This is a big no-no!  The worship should be towards Christ and not towards the image or object the image is on.

----------


## oyarde

> I have seen the universal church (both Orthodox and Catholic) accused of idolatry because of the icons we use around teh interwebz, and on these forums, IIRC.  This article addresses the issue quite well, IMO. (though specific to Orthodoxy) Hope you enjoy. 
> 
> http://www.stgeorgeaz.com/index.php?id=55
> Do Orthodox icons border on idolatry?
> 
> In Orthodox Christianity, icons are never worshipped, but they are honored and venerated.  Worship is reserved for God alone.  The second Commandment says, "you shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness or anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4-5).  The warnings here are, first, that we are not to depict images of things which are limited to heaven and therefore unseen, and second, we never bow down to or worship created, earthly things.  Does this condemn all imagery in worship?  The Scriptures tell us emphatically no!
> 
> Just five chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God, as recorded in Exodus 25, gives his divine blueprint, if you will, for the tabernacle.  Specifically in verses 19 and 20 he commands images of cherubim to be placed above the mercy seat.  Also, God promises to meet and speak with us through this imagery! (Ex.25:22)
> 
> ...


Somewhere I have a wooden carved fertility godess I picked up hunting in Africa.I do not think it could be confused with an icon ......

----------


## erowe1

Also, notice that what the author says about Exodus 25:22 is not what that verse says:



> 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

----------


## erowe1

> This is a big no-no!  The worship should be towards Christ and not towards the image or object the image is on.


That is good to hear.

----------


## TER

> Somewhere I have a wooden carved fertility godess I picked up hunting in Africa.I do not think it could be confused with an icon ......


Those objects in paganism I believe are indeed worshiped as gods, which differentiates them from the Christian understanding of icons.

----------


## TER

> Also, notice that what the author says about Exodus 25:22 is not what that verse says:


I think this might be a minor point.  The main point the author in the OP is trying to make is that God did ordain divine images to be displayed.

----------


## erowe1

> I think this might be a minor point.  The main point the author in the OP is trying to make is that God did ordain divine images to be displayed.


That God did that much is indisputable. There may be some people out there who say that all display of images is wrong, but I haven't encountered that view.

----------


## TER

> That God did that much is indisputable. There may be some people out there who say that all display of images is wrong, but I haven't encountered that view.


Some have.  For example, I believe Muslims feel that way.  Also, the iconoclasts of the 7th century felt that no divine images should be displayed IIRC.

----------


## TER

erowe, aside from the problem you listed above (namely, that some may actually worship the icon itself), what are your reservations (if any) with regards to icons being used in the prayer life of the Christian?

----------


## oyarde

> Some have.  For example, I believe Muslims feel that way.  Also, the iconoclasts of the 7th century felt that no divine images should be displayed IIRC.


The beginning of Islam is zero tolerance for images because the same peoples had hundreds in the prior pagan religion.

----------


## erowe1

> Some have.  For example, I believe Muslims feel that way.  Also, the iconoclasts of the 7th century felt that no divine images should be displayed IIRC.


Actually, yes, I thought about mentioning Muslims, but figured that the OP had Christians in mind. Plus, I don't know enough about what specifically Muslims think about images, beyond the fact that they're generally against them.

----------


## erowe1

> erowe, aside from the problem you listed above (namely, that some may actually worship the icon itself), what are your reservations (if any) with regards to icons being used in the prayer life of the Christian?


It depends on what you mean by "prayer life." No one should ever pray to anyone other than God. And no one, even praying to God, should pray to an image.

Images can be useful in education, though. I have a picture of a man praying. So, since it's a picture of someone praying, you could say that I use it in my prayer life. But only in that it depicts prayer, not in that I pray to it.

----------


## Matthew5

Icons are no more idols than a picture/painting of my grandmother. 

I believe the biggest issues are a misunderstanding of culture, the concept of honor and respect, and holiness. The religious culture of the West, namely post-Reformation Protestantism, speaks much of honoring the holiness of God, bowing down, and giving praise. Even in a modern Evangelical church, they will sing, "We bow down, we lay our crowns, at the feet of Jesus..." Some churches, the congregate actually kneels and lifts their hands. Jesus can be depicted all around the room, yet if we kiss the icon, as if we were kissing the hand of our Lord himself, it suddenly becomes idolatry?

No, it is this barren and sterile church environment that is out of step with the practice of Christianity for 2,000 years.

----------


## erowe1

> Even in a modern Evangelical church, they will sing, "We bow down, we lay our crowns, at the feet of Jesus..." Some churches, the congregate actually kneels and lifts their hands. Jesus can be depicted all around the room


If those people are bowing down to those images that are supposedly pictures of Jesus, then how would that not be idolatry?




> No, it is this barren and sterile church environment that is out of step with the practice of Christianity for 2,000 years.


Really? 2000 years? So the apostles did that?

----------


## Matthew5

> If those people are bowing down to those images that are supposedly pictures of Jesus, then how would that not be idolatry?


What are they bowing down to? An image in their mind? The imagery that the song creates?






> Really? 2000 years? So the apostles did that?


Yes, the Apostle Luke painted three icons of the Theotokos (for use in liturgical worship, by the way).

----------


## erowe1

> What are they bowing down to? An image in their mind? The imagery that the song creates?


I thought you were talking about physical images of Jesus. What did you mean by "depicted all around the room"?





> Yes, the Apostle Luke painted three icons of the Theotokos (for use in liturgical worship, by the way).


1) None of the apostles were named Luke.

2) If you're talking about Luke, the companion of Paul, or any other person named Luke for at least 300 years after the time of the apostles, what you're saying is absolutely false.

----------


## TER

> I thought you were talking about physical images of Jesus. What did you mean by "depicted all around the room"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) None of the apostles were named Luke.
> 
> 2) If you're talking about Luke, the companion of Paul, or any other person named Luke for at least 300 years after the time of the apostles, what you're saying is absolutely false.


False because you said so?

----------


## TER

> It depends on what you mean by "prayer life." No one should ever pray to anyone other than God. And no one, even praying to God, should pray to an image.
> 
> Images can be useful in education, though. I have a picture of a man praying. So, since it's a picture of someone praying, you could say that I use it in my prayer life. But only in that it depicts prayer, not in that I pray to it.


I fear you have a very limited understanding of the word 'pray'.  Pray means to entreat, just as as I entreat someone to help me, for example, praying to my friend or the saints.  You do not accept that prayer to the saints has any value.  I'm sorry you feel that way, but for the Orthodox Church going much further back then you, this has been the practice handed down by the Apostles.

----------


## Matthew5

> I thought you were talking about physical images of Jesus. What did you mean by "depicted all around the room"?


Stain glass windows or amateur oil paintings of Jesus.





> 1) None of the apostles were named Luke.
> 
> 2) If you're talking about Luke, the companion of Paul, or any other person named Luke for at least 300 years after the time of the apostles, what you're saying is absolutely false.


I'm speaking of Luke, the author of the Gospel book.

----------


## erowe1

> False because you said so?


No. It is a historical question, subject to the same kind of historical inquiry as any other historical question. We have tons and tons of data to use to understand the history of the use of images in Christian worship. If there are particular points that you have questions about, we can discuss them.

But you can't just take some wild claim, with no basis in fact, that goes against all historical evidence, like the claim that images were used in Christian worship all the way back to the time of the apostles and that we even know of a specific image painted by someone from that generation, and just drop it out there as though it's the truth.

If you have a myth that teaches that, then fine, just say, "According to one of my denomination's myths, so-and-so did such-and-such." And leave it at that.

----------


## erowe1

> Stain glass windows or amateur oil paintings of Jesus.


So then you are talking about physical images. If those images are being bowed down to, then that would be idolatry. Do you at least agree about that?




> I'm speaking of Luke, the author of the Gospel book.


In that case, the story you told is just that, a story, not history. When was that story about Luke written? AD 400 or later?

----------


## TER

Erowe, BTW, St. Luke was most certainly an Apostle.  He was one of the seventy sent by Christ in the New Testament, he was the one who walked with Cleopas on the road to Emmaus, he has always been considered to be an Apostle as well as Evangelist.  Your cursory knowledge of the history of St. Luke is because you deny the traditional teachings of the Church and have selfselected yourself.

----------


## moostraks

Certain formalities in church can become a stumbling block for the individual. It doesn't make the item itself an idol but the construct within the individual who is trying to grasp the higher purpose. 




> 1 Corinthians 8
> New International Version (NIV)
> Concerning Food Sacrificed to Idols
> 
> 8 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.[a]
> 
> 4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
> 
> 7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
> ...


Folks have to know the audience to whom they are approaching. Icons and the Eucharist are tough subjects for some to grasp. I admit my own failings in this regard and it is He who knows your heart and, if the student is willing, in due time I trust that what is necessary to be overcome can and will be conquered or it was not necessary to the path of that individual to do so.

----------


## erowe1

> Erowe, BTW, St. Luke was most certainly an Apostle.  He was one of the seventy sent by Christ in the New Testament


That's possible. But we have no evidence of that.

And even if that's the case, admittedly, the Greek word apostle can mean different things, including just anyone who is sent by anyone else to do anything. But I was using it the sense of its use as a title for those of the highest authority in the first generation of Christianity.

At any rate, for this discussion that's a side point. My mention of the apostles was meant for a chronological reference. So if you really think that someone from the same generation as the apostles used images in worship, then a narrower or broader meaning of the word "apostle" doesn't make a difference there.

----------


## TER

> No. It is a historical question, subject to the same kind of historical inquiry as any other historical question. We have tons and tons of data to use to understand the history of the use of images in Christian worship. If there are particular points that you have questions about, we can discuss them.
> 
> But you can't just take some wild claim, with no basis in fact, that goes against all historical evidence, like the claim that images were used in Christian worship all the way back to the time of the apostles and that we even know of a specific image painted by someone from that generation, and just drop it out there as though it's the truth.
> 
> If you have a myth that teaches that, then fine, just say, "According to one of my denomination's myths, so-and-so did such-and-such." And leave it at that.


Believe what you will erowe.  You will do so anyway no matter what you are told or what information you are given.  You deny St. Paul prayed for the dead even when you were presented evidence for it (btw, a common tradition of the Pharisees at that time, of which St. Paul claimed to be 20 years after his conversion to Christ).  You also deny 2 Maccabbees which also includes in it prayer to the dead and praying to the saints, a book which was ALWAYS considered inspired and authoritative Scripture to the ancient Christian Church.

----------


## TER

> That's possible. But we have no evidence of that.
> 
> And even if that's the case, admittedly, the Greek word apostle can mean different things, including just anyone who is sent by anyone else to do anything. But I was using it the sense of its use as a title for those of the highest authority in the first generation of Christianity.


There is evidence, it is called the Holy Tradition of the Church.  Perhaps you want video tapped evidence?  Because something was not written in the NT but passed down in the oral tradition, hymnology, and iconography of the church then there is no evidence?  When did you become the decider of what constitutes proof?

----------


## TER

> Certain formalities in church can become a stumbling block for the individual. It doesn't make the item itself an idol but the construct within the individual who is trying to grasp the higher purpose. 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks have to know the audience to whom they are approaching. Icons and the Eucharist are tough subjects for some to grasp. I admit my own failings in this regard and it is He who knows your heart and, if the student is willing, in due time I trust that what is necessary to be overcome can and will be conquered or it was not necessary to the path of that individual to do so.


I have no fear about you, moostraks.    You strike me as someone who is willing to open your heart and turn to truths which may be tough subjects at this point for your mind to grasp.

----------


## Matthew5

> There is evidence, it is called the Holy Tradition of the Church.  Perhaps you want video tapped evidence?  Because something was not written in the NT but passed down in the oral tradition, hymnology, and iconography of the church then there is no evidence?  When did you become the decider of what constitutes proof?


Please enlighten us to your superior knowledge. Or is it only found in the words of the Bible (another product of those icon painting Apostles and Church Councils)?

----------


## TER

> Please enlighten us to your superior knowledge. Or is it only found in the words of the Bible (another product of those icon painting Apostles and Church Councils)?


My guess is that you are referring to erowe here because you know that my knowledge is not limited to the books of the NT (as indispensable as they are) but from the entire witness of the Church which includes the written and oral traditions defended and passed down since the early Church.

I am rather interested into learning why erowe denies 2 Maccabbees when the Apostles and Chuch Fathers all considered it authoritative Scripture.    I can't imagine erowe thinks he knows better then them...

----------


## Matthew5

> My guess is that you are referring to erowe here because you know that my knowledge is not limited to the books of the NT (as indispensable as they are) but from the entire witness of the Church which includes the written and oral traditions defended and passed down since the early Church.
> 
> I am rather interested into learning why erowe denies 2 Maccabbees when the Apostles and Chuch Fathers all considered it authoritative Scripture.    I can't imagine erowe thinks he knows better then them...


Yes, this was for Erowe...your reputation proceeds you.

----------


## TER

I have a picture of my grandmother who died years ago.  I treasure that picture of her.  I take care of it.  When I wish to focus my thoughts on her and remember her, I take it out and look at it, and smile (sometimes with tears in my eye).  I kiss her face on the picture and hold it close to my breast and think of her and long for her presence.  Does this mean I worship my grandmother?  Does it mean I worship the plastic and ink that the picture is made of?  Of course not!   Likewise with icons, the wood or the paint is not worshipped, the material icon is not idolized.  What is venerated is the person whose image is on it (in the case of the saints).   In the case of God (Who ALONE is worshipped), it is not the image of Christ or the icon which is worshipped, but Christ Himself Who is worshipped with the icon only being a means for us to concentrate our thoughts and focus our prayers, just as the picture of my grandmother helps me to focus my thoughts and remembrance of her.  If you can pray and focus your prayer without the use of an icon, great!  Christians are told to pray unceasingly, so of course for the most part our prayers are not before an icon (otherwise, how would we here living in the world do the things we have to do that must be done during the day!)  If one feels uncomfortable with icons, then don't use them!  No one will judge your eternal soul on this!

But the resistance and hesitation to icons is something indoctrinated in a person, because I tell you quite plainly, such methods of instruction and assistance to prayer is natural.  It is not children who have problems in understanding the role and use of icons but rather adults (because they have been taught a different way.). This is not a difficult subject to understand when one can differentiate veneration from worship.  There is no disagreement that. God alone is worshipped.  The icons are rather human methods of instruction (especially in the early history of the Church when publications were rare and the literacy rate extremely low) and tools useful in prayer.

----------


## erowe1

> There is evidence, it is called the Holy Tradition of the Church.  Perhaps you want video tapped evidence?  Because something was not written in the NT but passed down in the oral tradition, hymnology, and iconography of the church then there is no evidence?  When did you become the decider of what constitutes proof?


When does that tradition first appear?

I don't want video taped evidence. I'm interested in all evidence, including whatever evidence you consider holy tradition. But when I'm looking at a question of what happened in the first century, I'm not going to give priority to 5th century evidence over 1st century evidence.

I'm not a decider of what constitutes proof. If you have evidence, I'm interested in seeing it.

----------


## erowe1

> I am rather interested into learning why erowe denies 2 Maccabbees when the Apostles and Chuch Fathers all considered it authoritative Scripture.    I can't imagine erowe thinks he knows better then them...


Once again, I am baffled by your habit of putting words in my mouth only to argue against them. I think I asked you this before. Is your reason for doing this that you only want to argue? So you just pick something to argue about out of thin air and pretend I said it so that you can argue against it and pretend you're arguing with me?

I'm not sure what it means to "deny" 2 Macabees, or how it even got into this discussion. But, for the record, whatever books the apostles accepted as Scripture, I also accept.

----------


## erowe1

> Please enlighten us to your superior knowledge. Or is it only found in the words of the Bible (another product of those icon painting Apostles and Church Councils)?


I don't claim to have superior knowledge. If you have questions about the history of the use of images in Christian worship, there's plenty of evidence to look at. Yes, this includes the books that are in the New Testament. These are the earliest Christian writings we have and, by far, the best evidence we have for the Christianity of the first century. It also includes the evidence of archaeology, and other early Christian writings, and written evidence about Christianity penned by nonchristians. Cast a wide net, as wide as you want. See what you find about the use of images in early Christian worship. Don't take my word for it.

If you want to ask me about particular points, go right ahead.

----------


## TER

> When does that tradition first appear?
> 
> I don't want video taped evidence. I'm interested in all evidence, including whatever evidence you consider holy tradition. But when I'm looking at a question of what happened in the first century, I'm not going to give priority to 5th century evidence over 1st century evidence.
> 
> I'm not a decider of what constitutes proof. If you have evidence, I'm interested in seeing it.


And what does it matter if I show you proof?  You will still believe whatever you choose and whatever makes you most comfortable in your own skin!

I brought up 2 Maccabees, and you ignore it!  This was in the Septuagint (the official book used by the early Church and the one most referenced to in the NT) and has always been considered authoritative and inspired writings of the early Church, yet you deny it and cast it away because some men 1600 years later thought it would be better to cast it aside in order to make their case for their interpretation of the faith.  Why should I go find you proof when you can't prove to me why 2 Maccabees is not inspired writings! 

 Why don't you prove to me that the early Church didn't in fact pray to the saints or for the dead and then I will prove to you that the early Church used icons in worship.

----------


## erowe1

> And what does it matter if I show you proof?  You will still believe whatever you choose and whatever makes you most comfortable in your own skin!


That's a pretty strong claim about me. Why do you believe that?




> I brought up 2 Maccabees, and you ignore it!


I did not.

And, not only did I not ignore it, but the post you brought it up in wasn't directed to me in the first place. It was one of these, let me talk about erowe1 in the third person like he's not here, things.




> This was in the Septuagint (the official book used by the early Church and the one most referenced to in the NT) and has always been considered authoritative and inspired writings of the early Church, yet you deny it and cast it away because some men 1600 years later thought it would be better to cast it aside in order to make their case for their interpretation of the faith.


Where are you getting all this information about what I believe?

----------


## TER

> That's a pretty strong claim about me. Why do you believe that?
> 
> 
> I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting all this information about what I believe?


I am getting the information from what you write.  But you are right that I may be mistaken.  So let me ask you plainly: do you believe as the earliest Christians did that 2 Maccabbees is inspired writings?

----------


## erowe1

> I am getting the information from what you write


Show me the quotes please.

And while you're looking, I may want to go back to about a dozen other posts you've made about me in the past week where you flat out make up words to put in my mouth and ask you to show me those quotes too.

----------


## TER

> No one should ever pray to anyone other than God.


Can you answer my question in the earlier post?

----------


## erowe1

> Can you answer my question in the earlier post?


What question? You've asked a lot of them, usually prefaced by some assertion about what I supposedly believe with no basis in anything I've said.

----------


## TER

> I am getting the information from what you write.  But you are right that I may be mistaken.  So let me ask you plainly: do you believe as the earliest Christians did that 2 Maccabbees is inspired writings?


The question above.

----------


## erowe1

> The question above.


Sure. But first find the quotes I asked for.

Or are you actually interested in asking me what I believe no, rather than telling me?

You say you got it from what I wrote. So show me. If what you say is true, then you should already have the quote of me saying plainly what the answer to that question is.

----------


## TER

You said earlier that only God is prayed to.
You state you believe what the early Christians believed.
Since the early Christians considered 2 Maccabbees to be inspired and authoritative writings, and since 2 Maccabbees has within it the practice of praying for the dead and praying to the saints for their intercessions, I am led to believe you agree with it.
But your earlier post says that only God is prayed to.
So I am confused.  Why don't you tell me what you believe since we are going around in circles?

----------


## erowe1

> You said earlier that only God is prayed to.
> You state you believe what the early Christians believed.
> Since the early Christians considered 2 Maccabbees to be inspired and authoritative writings, and since 2 Maccabbees has within it the practice of praying for the dead and praying to the saints for their intercessions, I am led to believe you agree with it.
> But your earlier post says that only God is prayed to.
> So I am confused.  Why don't you tell me what you believe?


I would be happy to tell you what I believe.

But before I do, we need to settle this issue of your apparently knowing everything I believe without needing me to tell you. You have done it numerous times, and from the way you are trying to get away from that point, I get the impression that you have every intent to continue it.

So let's go back to all the things you've asserted about what I believe, and show me the quotes, starting with the following assertions you've made in this thread:

1) My cursory knowledge of the history of St. Luke is because I deny the traditional teachings of the Church and have selfselected myself.
2) I will believe whatever I want no matter what I am told or what information I am given.
3) I deny that Paul prayed for the dead.
4) I "deny" 2 Maccabbees (whatever that means)
5) The reason I do is "because some men 1600 years later thought it would be better to cast it aside in order to make their case for their interpretation of the faith"
6) It doesn't matter if you show me proof of something. I will still believe whatever I choose and whatever makes you most comfortable in my own skin.

Please show me where I've said these things.

Once we get those out of the way, then I intend to work my way back to other words you've put in my mouth.

I'm not going to keep playing your game where every time I actually make a point that's relevant to the discussion you ignore it and shift back to something you feel more competent to argue about by putting words in my mouth.

Once I know you're done with that, then I'll get back to the discussion at hand.

----------


## TER

> I would be happy to tell you what I believe.
> 
> But before I do, we need to settle this issue of your apparently knowing everything I believe without needing me to tell you. You have done it numerous times, and from the way you are trying to get away from that point, I get the impression that you have every intent to continue it.
> 
> So let's go back to all the things you've asserted about what I believe, and show me the quotes, starting with the following assertions you've made in this thread:
> 
> 1) My cursory knowledge of the history of St. Luke is because I deny the traditional teachings of the Church and have selfselected myself.
> 2) I will believe whatever I want no matter what I am told or what information I am given.
> 3) I deny that Paul prayed for the dead.
> ...


You are right.  I shouldn't put words in your mouth.  I think I have a certain idea of your beliefs having spent the last almost 6 years reading your posts.  But I admit I can be wrong (I often am!).  I will be more careful in addressing your posts in the future.

Now, assuming I know nothing about your beliefs, can you explain to me why you do not believe in praying to the saints for their intercessions or for praying for the dead?  (And if I am wrong in stating that you don't believe in these things, then please correct me)

----------


## erowe1

Back to your point about 2 Maccabees.

We can leave aside for the moment the question of whether it's Scripture, because I don't think it says anything relevant to this thread anyway.

Notice what I said. I said that I do not believe in praying TO anyone other than God.

2 Maccabees does have praying FOR the dead. But it does not have praying TO the dead. Nor do I see anything in it that supports praying TO anyone other than God.

Am I wrong about that?

----------


## TER

> Back to your point about 2 Maccabees.
> 
> We can leave aside for the moment the question of whether it's Scripture, because I don't think it says anything relevant to this thread anyway.
> 
> Notice what I said. I said that I do not believe in praying TO anyone other than God.
> 
> 2 Maccabees does have praying FOR the dead. But it does not have praying TO the dead. Nor do I see anything in it that supports praying TO anyone other than God.
> 
> Am I wrong about that?


Yes, you are, but before we continue, I just wish to clarify your beliefs so I don't make any future mistakes.  Do you believe in praying FOR the dead?

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, you are, but before we continue, I just wish to clarify your beliefs so I don't make any future mistakes.  Do you believe in praying FOR the dead?


No. I don't, at least not as a doctrine that I positively affirm. But I don't strongly stand against it either. I don't think it's automatically wrong.

That said, the doctrine of purgatory is one that I positively reject. So, if praying for the dead is connected with that, then I reject that specific kind of praying for the dead.

Notice, though, that this issue does not relate to this thread the way praying TO the dead does.

----------


## TER

> No. I don't, at least not as a doctrine that I positively affirm. But I don't strongly stand against it either. I don't think it's automatically wrong..


Thank you for your somewhat straight answer.    I am perplexed why you don't pray for the dead, considering it is Scriptural, it was practiced by the Jews at the time of Christ (including St. Paul), it was included in the worship of the early Church, and is attested to by the writings of the Church Fathers.  Indeed, the VAST historical evidence is that Christians have and do pray for the dead.  So I wonder why you don't.  Can you answer why you cannot positively affirm it to be part of the Christian faith?  What more evidence would you need?

----------


## TER

Also, this thread has long strayed from the OP (as many threads do in the Religion forum).  If you would like, I can start a new thread about this, otherwise I am fine continuing the discussion here.

----------


## erowe1

> Thank you for your somewhat straight answer.    I am perplexed why you don't pray for the dead, considering it is Scriptural, it was practiced by the Jews at the time of Christ (including St. Paul),


I know of no evidence for these claims.

You can say that some Jews at the time of Christ practiced it. That's all.

I'm not sure when we first find evidence of Christian practice of it. But it's not until at least the third century, if not later. It looks to me to be a late innovation that someone came up with, that did not belong to the traditions passed down from the apostles.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Also, this thread has long strayed from the OP (as many threads do in the Religion forum).  If you would like, I can start a new thread about this, otherwise I am fine continuing the discussion here.


I would appreciate it if you started a new thread for the subject.   It seems now that the derailment will be distracting to people just visiting the thread.  ~hugs~

----------


## TER

> I know of no evidence for these claims.
> 
> You can say that some Jews at the time of Christ practiced it. That's all.


You can say that all the Pharisees practiced it.  Do you deny it was the practice of the Pharisees?
St. Paul was a Pharisee.  He practiced it and there is even an instance in one of his epistles when he does so, for in   1 Timothy we read:

_"May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lord's mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well."_

Now you may argue that this is not conclusive evidence that he is praying for the dead Onesiphorus, but it is your word against the testimony of the Church, and I choose the Church's witness over yours.

 Christ also clearly said in the Scriptures that the Pharisees (and not the other sects) sat on the seat of Moses and told His followers to do what they said (not the prideful things they did, mind you, but the important other aspects of worship and doctrine which they held, for example the resurrection of the dead).  

It is also clearly stated in 2 Maccabees which you admit.

So Scripturally it is supported, and historically it is supported given the fact that the practice goes back to the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, and has been consistently practiced for many many centuries, in the oldest and ancient Christian faiths as well as the older Protestant faiths.

So my question remains, why don't you?

----------


## TER

> I would appreciate it if you started a new thread for the subject.   It seems now that the derailment will be distracting to people just visiting the thread.  ~hugs~


Just saw this.  Will start a new thread.

----------


## erowe1

> You can say that all the Pharisees practiced it.


What's your evidence for this claim?




> He practiced it and there is even an instance in one of his epistles when he does so, for in   1 Timothy we read:
> 
> _"May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lord's mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well."_


That's from 2 Timothy. Notice 2 things: 1) It doesn't say anything about prayer. 2) It doesn't say anything about any dead people.




> Now you may argue that this is not conclusive evidence that he is praying for the dead Onesiphorus, but it is your word against the testimony of the Church, and I choose the Church's witness over yours.


What church testimony are you talking about? You haven't shown me any. All you've shown me is a verse that makes no mention of praying for the dead.




> It is also clearly stated in 2 Maccabees which you admit.


2 Maccabees shows us that some Jews practiced it. Like I said, that's all we can say.




> the practice goes back to the earliest writings of the Church Fathers


Which ones specifically? I highly doubt that it's in any of the earliest ones.

----------


## TER

> What's your evidence for this claim?
> 
> 
> That's from 2 Timothy. Notice 2 things: 1) It doesn't say anything about prayer. 2) It doesn't say anything about any dead people.
> 
> 
> What church testimony are you talking about? You haven't shown me any. All you've shown me is a verse that makes no mention of praying for the dead.
> 
> 
> ...


Erowe, copy and paste this to the other new thread.

----------


## Matthew5

What perplexes me, and this is pertains to the use of iconography, is this "third century" argument used by Protestants. I call it that argument because it seems that they dismantle Holy Tradition by saying, "oh well, that didn't appear till the third century or the earliest evidence we have is the fourth century".

And pray tell what is Protestantism but a 16th century invention? Does it matter if we only have evidence going back to the year 300 on a certain topic? It's a very weak argument considering you're standing on quick sand when it comes to your own historical significance in Christianity. The Apostles did hand down some things orally, that is even mentioned by St. Paul. What if someone finally decided to write it down after a certain time? These aren't new inventions they suddenly came up with.

This was all settled in the year 787 anyway by the Seveth Ecumenical Council:

_Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but  symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty  of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it.  Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but  towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to  material objects, but worship is due to God alone._ _We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere  and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two  beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of  Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I  throw them away and burn them._ *—St. John of Damascus*

----------


## erowe1

> What perplexes me, and this is pertains to the use of iconography, is this "third century" argument used by Protestants. I call it that argument because it seems that they dismantle Holy Tradition by saying, "oh well, that didn't appear till the third century or the earliest evidence we have is the fourth century".
> 
> And pray tell what is Protestantism but a 16th century invention? Does it matter if we only have evidence going back to the year 300 on a certain topic? It's a very weak argument considering you're standing on quick sand when it comes to your own historical significance in Christianity. The Apostles did hand down some things orally, that is even mentioned by St. Paul. What if someone finally decided to write it down after a certain time? These aren't new inventions they suddenly came up with.
> 
> This was all settled in the year 787 anyway by the Seveth Ecumenical Council:
> 
> _Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but  symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty  of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it.  Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but  towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to  material objects, but worship is due to God alone._ _We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere  and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two  beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of  Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I  throw them away and burn them._ *—St. John of Damascus*


Who cares about Protestantism though?

If you want to follow the traditions passed down to you from 8th century Christianity, that's fine. I prefer not to base my faith on those later innovations. I prefer sticking to the traditions of the apostolic Church. Your criticism of Protestantism cuts both ways. You can't on the one hand condemn them for innovation, and on the other hand base your own faith on innovation.

Sure, of course the apostles handed down some things orally. But when somebody in the 8th century claims that something they're saying was handed down by the apostles, how do we go about telling if it's true? We go about it the same way we go about all historical inquiry. We consider the actual evidence. And when it comes to the use of images in Christian worship, there's plenty of evidence to consider.

The claim that Luke, the companion of Paul, made an icon of Mary, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And, by the way, when it comes to icons, did any Church fathers ever even make the claim that their view had been passed down to them orally from the apostles? If they did, I'd like to see their quotes saying that. If they didn't, then why would someone today in the 21st century say something that even those Church fathers didn't say?

----------


## TER

> Who cares about Protestantism though?
> 
> If you want to follow the traditions passed down to you from 8th century Christianity, that's fine. I prefer not to base my faith on those later innovations. I prefer sticking to the traditions of the apostolic Church.
> 
> Sure, of course the apostles handed down some things orally. But when somebody in the 8th century claims that something they're saying was handed down by the apostles, how do we go about telling if it's true? We go about it the same way we go about all historical inquiry. We consider the actual evidence. And when it comes to the use of images in Christian worship, there's plenty of evidence to consider.
> 
> The claim that Luke, the companion of Paul, made an icon of Mary, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> And, by the way, when it comes to icons, did any Church fathers ever even make the claim that their view had been passed down to them orally from the apostles? If they did, I'd like to see their quotes saying that. If they didn't, then why would someone today in the 21st century say something that even those Church fathers didn't say?


  And even if you think the use of icons starts in the 3rd century, why does what someone having to say about it in the 18th century have precedence?

----------


## erowe1

> And even if you think the use of icons starts in the 3rd century, why does what someone having to say about it in the 18th century have precedence?


It doesn't. I'm interested in the evidence, not someone's opinions.

And does it even start as early as the 3rd century? I'm skeptical of that (though not as skeptical as I am that it started in the second or first).

At least in Origen's day, in the early to middle part of the third century, it seems not to have arisen yet. Or, if it existed somewhere in Christendom, he didn't seem to know about it.

----------


## TER

> It doesn't. I'm interested in the evidence, not someone's opinions.
> 
> And does it even start as early as the 3rd century? I'm skeptical of that (though not as skeptical as I am that it started in the second or first).
> 
> At least in Origen's day, in the early to middle part of the third century, it seems not to have arisen yet. Or, if it existed somewhere in Christendom, he didn't seem to know about it.


So a quote by Origen would then convince you?

----------


## TER

I have to go to work in an hour so will have to wait till later to post.  

For now, I want you to know erowe that I do not think you are condemned or am judging your eternal salvation based on whether you believe in the use of icons as a tool for prayer, or in praying for the dead, or in praying to the saints for their intercessions.  I don't think Christ will judge a person too harshly for not believing in those things because they were brought up in a different tradition or because they don't feel like they have enough evidence to accept it to be true Christian practice.  Nevertheless, you are missing out a tremendous amount of the fullness of the faith in denying these things.  This is not my sayings alone, but the experience of the Church and of those who are or have become Orthodox and who know first hand that icons are NOT worshipped, prayers for the dead IS beneficial for the those departed from the flesh, and that the intercessions of the saints DO assist us in our walk towards God.

----------


## Matthew5

> It doesn't. I'm interested in the evidence, not someone's opinions.
> 
> And does it even start as early as the 3rd century? I'm skeptical of that (though not as skeptical as I am that it started in the second or first).
> 
> At least in Origen's day, in the early to middle part of the third century, it seems not to have arisen yet. Or, if it existed somewhere in Christendom, he didn't seem to know about it.


Eusebius wrote about it in the 4th century as Church history:

"4. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings,  the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers."

----------


## erowe1

> So a quote by Origen would then convince you?


If a quote by Origen indicated that he were aware of the use of icons in Christian worship, then yes, that would convince me that the practice dates back at least to the time of Origen.

On the other hand, if Origen knew nothing of the practice (which I believe to be the case), then that certainly weighs against the claim that, when the practice does first appear in literature later on, it was passed down orally from the apostles.

----------


## erowe1

> Eusebius wrote about it in the 4th century as Church history:
> 
> "4. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings,  the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers."


Yes, 4th century does not surprise me.

----------


## Matthew5

> Yes, 4th century does not surprise me.





> Instead of attaching the common conception to images, we should look upon what they               symbolise, and not despise the divine mark and character which they portray, as sensible               images of mysterious and heavenly visions.


How about first century? Is this old enough for you?

----------


## erowe1

> How about first century? Is this old enough for you?


Who's St. Denis the Areopagite?

Whatever it is that you just posted, it's definitely not from the 1st century.

ETA: Oh, you're talking about this, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-...the_Areopagite

----------


## erowe1

I appreciate the fact that you're approaching this historically, and looking for actual evidence.

May you continue to do that with an open mind.

----------


## Matthew5

> Who's St. Denis the Areopagite?
> 
> Whatever it is that you just posted, it's definitely not from the 1st century.
> 
> ETA: Oh, you're talking about this, I think.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-...the_Areopagite


Denis is sort of the nickname for Dionysius. But no, I'm referring Hieromartyr Dionysius the Aeropagite:





> The Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens 
> 
> St  Dionysius lived originally in the city of Athens. He was raised there  and received a classical Greek education. He then went to Egypt, where  he studied astronomy at the city of Heliopolis. It was in Heliopolis,  along with his friend Apollophonos where he witnessed the solar eclipse  that occurred at the moment of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ by  Crucifixion. “Either the Creator of all the world now suffers, or this  visible world is coming to an end,” Dionysius said. Upon his return to  Athens from Egypt, he was chosen to be a member of the Areopagus Council  (Athenian high court). 
> 
> When the holy Apostle Paul preached at  the place on the Hill of Ares (Acts 17:16-34), Dionysius accepted his  salvific proclamation and became a Christian. For three years St  Dionysius remained a companion of the holy Apostle Paul in preaching the  Word of God. Later on, the Apostle Paul selected him as bishop of the  city of Athens. And in the year 57 St Dionysius was present at the  repose of the Most Holy Theotokos. 
> During the lifetime of the  Mother of God, St Dionysius had journeyed from Athens to Jerusalem to  meet Her. He wrote to his teacher the Apostle Paul: “I witness by God,  that besides the very God Himself, there is nothing else filled with  such divine power and grace. No one can fully comprehend what I saw. I  confess before God: when I was with John, who shone among the Apostles  like the sun in the sky, when I was brought before the countenance of  the Most Holy Virgin, I experienced an inexpressible sensation. Before  me gleamed a sort of divine radiance which transfixed my spirit. I  perceived the fragrance of indescribable aromas and was filled with such  delight that my very body became faint, and my spirit could hardly  endure these signs and marks of eternal majesty and heavenly power. The  grace from her overwhelmed my heart and shook my very spirit. If I did  not have in mind your instruction, I should have mistaken Her for the  very God. It is impossible to stand before greater blessedness than this  which I beheld.”

----------


## erowe1

> Denis is sort of the nickname for Dionysius. But no, I'm referring Hieromartyr Dionysius the Aeropagite:


Yes. I realized that. See the ETA on my post. The writings attributed to him are from the 5th or 6th century. There are no authentic writings from the actual 1st century Dionysius the Areopagite mentioned in the Book of Acts.

I'm not sure what this quote comes from in your latest post either. But it is also definitely not from the 1st century.

ETA:
Could you try to add links to your sources? I have noticed that every time you post something that is supposedly 1st century (the painting by Luke, your first quote from Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and now this other quote supposedly from Dionysius the Areopagite), you never show where you copied them from. It creates the appearance that you're not completely confident of the historical trustworthiness of the sites they come from.

----------


## TER

Interesting to note that in the *non-canonical 2nd-century Acts of John (generally considered a gnostic work),*  where the Apostle John discovers that one of his followers has had a portrait made of him, and was venerating it: 




> "...he [John] went into the bedchamber, and saw the portrait of an old man crowned with garlands, and lamps and altars set before it. And he called him and said: Lycomedes, what do you mean by this matter of the portrait? Can it be one of thy gods that is painted here? For I see that you are still living in heathen fashion." Later in the passage John says, "But this that you have now done is childish and imperfect: you have drawn a dead likeness of the dead."


What is interesting is that the gnostics made a point to relay this story in their false gospel.  Seems to me they were trying to attack what had already been practiced in the greater Christian Church, namely the drawing and and venerations of images of Christ and the saints.  Of course this doesn't constitute proof, but it is interesting to note.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually, yes, I thought about mentioning Muslims, but figured that the OP had Christians in mind. Plus, I don't know enough about what specifically Muslims think about images, beyond the fact that they're generally against them.


They're all over the map.  On the one hand they attack Christians for "worshiping" an image of the cross.  And yet some Muslim rosaries have a cresent moon right where a cross would be on a Catholic rosary.





As to the OP, all I can say is my own personal knowledge.  We once had a Catholic real estate agent who jokingly said we could bury a statute of St. Jude (patron saint of lost causes) in our back yard because we were having trouble selling our home.  While it was a joke, and I certainly don't doubt our friend's Christianity, I'm not sure I draw a big distinction between that and some African tribesman burying a statute of a long dead ancestor for the same purpose.  Yes God commissioned statutes and tapestries of angels for the temple so that people would think of His thrown in heaven.  Isaiah describes God's throne as being surrounded by angels.  But I don't think the agent Hebrews went around thinking "Hey!  If I wear, carry, bury a statute of one of these angels it will bring me good fortune!"  That said, there were a few times where the carved items became a stumbling block.  The evil sons of Eli thought that just by carrying the ark into battle they would have good fortune.  They ended up dead as God had told Samuel they would.  During the time of the judges some Hebrews began to worship the bronze serpent that Moses had held up in the wilderness.  And there's probably some other example that escapes me at the moment.

----------


## TER

I recall the bronze statue of the serpent on the wooden pole created by Moses which when gazed at by the Israelites cured them of the poison of the venomous snakes.  This was an icon/symbol and type of the crucificed Christ.

----------


## jmdrake

> I recall the bronze statue of the serpent on the wooden pole created by Moses which when gazed at by the Israelites cured them of the poison of the venomous snakes.  This was an icon/symbol and type of the crucificed Christ.


Yes.  And it became a stumbling block as people worshiped it.

_2 Kings 18:4

4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).[a]_

----------


## Matthew5

> Yes. I realized that. See the ETA on my post. The writings attributed to him are from the 5th or 6th century. There are no authentic writings from the actual 1st century Dionysius the Areopagite mentioned in the Book of Acts.
> 
> I'm not sure what this quote comes from in your latest post either. But it is also definitely not from the 1st century.


It comes from an essay written by St. John of Damascus and quoted from a letter to the Bishop Titus, I believe. However, there's plenty more references from the Essay 
*Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images*These are histories as told by 4th century authors. They're not commenting on current trends, but something that has been tradition.

----------


## TER

> Yes.  And it became a stumbling block as people worshiped it.
> 
> _2 Kings 18:4
> 
> 4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).[a]_


Yes, it should never have been worshipped.  If they had understood the true use of this icon, they would have still have found benefit from it.

----------


## TER

> It comes from an essay written by St. John of Damascus and quoted from a letter to the Bishop Titus, I believe. However, there's plenty more references from the Essay 
> *Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images*These are histories as told by 4th century authors. They're not commenting on current trends, but something that has been tradition.


This really is the theological treatise par excellance which defends the use of icons in worship, and is based on the traditional practice and use in the history and life of the Church.  Those who want concrete evidence in terms of specific writings of the earliest centuries will simply continue to disbelieve as there is admittingly scarce written records to prove this to their liking.  After all, for the first three centuries, it could be punishable by death just simply professing to be Christian!  Iconography, while present for example in the walls of the catacombs and elsewhere remained a hidden aspect of the faith for fear of the repercussions (similarly to how the faithful in the last century hid their religious icons from fear of persecutions from the Soviet atheists).  

I urge those who are not convinced historically to the place of icons in the worship of the Church to at least read the treatise above to get a better understanding of how the oldest Christian Churches (namely the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches) use icons and their place as a tool for prayer.  I think if we can all agree that icons are not worshiped, then there can be a greater chance for mutual understanding.

----------


## erowe1

> Interesting to note that in the *non-canonical 2nd-century Acts of John (generally considered a gnostic work),*  where the Apostle John discovers that one of his followers has had a portrait made of him, and was venerating it: 
> 
> 
> 
> What is interesting is that the gnostics made a point to relay this story in their false gospel.  Seems to me they were trying to attack what had already been practiced in the greater Christian Church, namely the drawing and and venerations of images of Christ and the saints.  Of course this doesn't constitute proof, but it is interesting to note.


Where in the Acts of John does that passage come from? And what's your basis for saying it's second century?

ETA:
I hunted it down. It comes from sections 26-29 of the book.
In the introduction to the Acts of John in the standard scholarly edition of the New Testament Apocrypha, the author of that section argues that the Acts of John was written in the 3rd century. He's rather tentative about it. Its earliest attestation by Christian writers is in the 4th century.

If we accept the 3rd century date, then this is our earliest evidence for Christian veneration of icons.

----------


## erowe1

> It comes from an essay written by St. John of Damascus and quoted from a letter to the Bishop Titus, I believe. However, there's plenty more references from the Essay 
> *Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images*These are histories as told by 4th century authors. They're not commenting on current trends, but something that has been tradition.


The quotes of Dionysius by John of Damascus are quotes from those 6th century Pseudo-Dionysius writings. See the link I posted.

Yes, by the time of John of Damascus in the 8th century, this had been in the tradition for 200 years. In this particular case, your evidence does not go back to the 1st century, or even to the 4th.

I don't doubt that John of Damascus would cite things that do go back to the 4th. I doubt that any of his evidence for veneration of icons goes back to the 3rd century, though it wouldn't completely shock me. And if you can find anything at all as early as the 2nd century that we can actually date somewhat reliably, I will be shocked.

This serves as a good case study for how to deal with denominations of Christianity that claim to be the one true Church, and that base that claim on traditions that they have and that they claim go back through a chain of oral transmission back to the apostles. What are we to do with the authority of those in that Church who appeal to that chain of oral transmission of apostolic traditions, when we look into it and find out that their traditions, such at these attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, don't really go back to the apostles?

We are left with the options of either rejecting that denomination's claims of unique genuineness, or else accepting those claims at the cost of placing the innovative traditions of that denomination's own leaders over the older traditions of the Church that Jesus Christ founded through his apostles.

----------


## Matthew5

Examples of icons in Dura Europos Church (circa 233):






Granted these aren't as skilled as some iconographers, but it is a form nonetheless. There was also words of the Eucharistic prayers found from the Didache, which means this church was obviously concerned with what the Apostles wrote and wished to follow it. 

Oh, and the Jews were had been using iconography as well...why would it be a sudden departure and then a reemergence 150 years later? Most likely not.

----------


## erowe1

> Examples of icons in Dura Europos Church (circa 233):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granted these aren't as skilled as some iconographers, but it is a form nonetheless. There was also words of the Eucharistic prayers found from the Didache, which means this church was obviously concerned with what the Apostles wrote and wished to follow it. 
> 
> Oh, and the Jews were had been using iconography as well...why would it be a sudden departure and then a reemergence 150 years later? Most likely not.


I can show you other uses of pictures by Christians that are older than that.

But did they pray to them? That's the question.

Notice this line from the wikipedia article on the Dura Europa Synagogue:



> Scholars think the paintings were used as an instructional display to educate and teach the history and laws of the religion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue

I think that you're right to include comparisons with contemporary Judaism in your research, btw. That Jewish data is part of this enormous pool of information we have about early Christianity. We don't need to rely on much later sources by people claiming to be the first ones to put into writing something that had supposedly been handed down orally for many centuries, and that earlier writers seemed to know nothing about.

ETA: Actually, those are not from AD 233. The building only began to be used as a church then. Those pictures are from later. Do you have a date for when they were made?

Also, whenever those pictures were made, and whatever they were used for, notice this line from the wikipedia article on the church:



> These are considered the earliest depictions of Jesus Christ.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Eu...ch#cite_note-3
What do you make of that claim?

----------


## eduardo89

> But did they pray to them? That's the question.


We don't pray to icons, crucifixes, crosses, paintings, statues, prayer cards, etc. We use them to help us focus our prayer, but we do not pray to the objects.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We don't pray to icons, crucifixes, crosses, paintings, statues, prayer cards, etc. We use them to help us focus our prayer, but we do not pray to the objects.


Truth.

----------


## Matthew5

> We don't pray to icons, crucifixes, crosses, paintings, statues, prayer cards, etc. We use them to help us focus our prayer, but we do not pray to the objects.


Indeed, imagery has a long established place in the church. The whole purpose of the thread was to reinforce the idea that Christian imagery (namely Orthodox and Roman Catholic) is not idolatry and has an established presence in the Church and its Jewish roots. Therefore, a church or home without such imagery would be an outlier to the established tradition of the faith.

----------


## erowe1

> Indeed, imagery has a long established place in the church. The whole purpose of the thread was to reinforce the idea that Christian imagery (namely Orthodox and Roman Catholic) is not idolatry and has an established presence in the Church and its Jewish roots. Therefore, a church or home without such imagery would be an outlier to the established tradition of the faith.


That did seem to be the purpose of the OP. But my understanding of your whole point this entire time has been that you did advocate praying to and worshiping images. If that's not the case, then what have you been arguing?

Looking back, I tried to get a clear answer from you on that point, and never got one. You also did pretty clearly advocate kissing images of Jesus. In what way would that not be idolatry?

----------


## erowe1

> We don't pray to icons, crucifixes, crosses, paintings, statues, prayer cards, etc. We use them to help us focus our prayer, but we do not pray to the objects.


That's good to hear.

Like I said above, I have seen people very clearly praying to manmade physical depictions of Jesus.

Can you point me to any official RC document that would condemn that, in case I get a chance to discuss that with someone who does it?

Also, what does it mean to use them to focus your prayer? I would think that if a young Christian were given some image of Jesus and told to use it to focus their prayer, praying to the image would be the natural thing for them to do. How could it focus their prayer without them doing that?

I'm definitely not against using pictures for educational purposes. And I think that has been a very important role they have had throughout Christian history, while the great majority of believers have been illiterate. That's what the images shown above from the Dura Europa church look like they were for to me. I think a similar point could be made about a lot of Jewish uses of images.

----------


## Matthew5

> That did seem to be the purpose of the OP. But my understanding of your whole point this entire time has been that you did advocate praying to and worshiping images. If that's not the case, then what have you been arguing?


No, I don't advocate object worship, God alone is deserving of our worship. We pay reverence to the icon because of the person that it depicts. I'll let the Church Fathers sum it up:




> "Since this is the case, following the   royal path and the teaching divinely inspired by our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the   catholic Church—for we know that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in   it—we decide in all correctness and after a thorough examination that, just as the   holy and vivifying Cross, similarly the holy and precious Icons painted with colors, made   with little stones or with any other matter serving this purpose (_epitedeios_),   should be placed in the holy churches of God, on vases and sacred vestments, on walls and   boards, in houses and on roads, whether these are Icons of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus   Christ, or of our spotless Sovereign Lady, the holy Mother of God, or of the holy angels   and of holy and venerable men. For each time that we see their representation in an image,   each time, while gazing upon them, we are made *to remember the prototypes*, we grow to love   them more, and we are more induced to worship them by kissing them and by witnessing our   veneration (_proskenesin_), not the true adoration (_latreian_) which, according   to our faith, is proper only to the one divine nature, but in the same way as we venerate   the image of the precious and vivifying cross, the holy Gospel and other sacred objects   which we honor with incense and candles according to the pious custom of our forefathers. For   the honor rendered to the image goes to its prototype, and the person who venerates an   Icon venerates the person represented in it. Indeed, such is the teaching of our   holy Fathers and the Tradition of the holy catholic Church which propagated the Gospel   from one end of the earth to the other."

----------


## Matthew5

> That's good to hear.
> 
> Like I said above, I have seen people very clearly praying to manmade physical depictions of Jesus.
> 
> Can you point me to any official RC document that would condemn that, in case I get a chance to discuss that with someone who does it?
> 
> Also, what does it mean to use them to focus your prayer? I would think that if a young Christian were given some image of Jesus and told to use it to focus their prayer, praying to the image would be the natural thing for them to do. How could it focus their prayer without them doing that?


I stand before an icon and pray to the person depicted. It is a visual that helps focus my mind as if I were standing before the person depicted. When we close our eyes or have nothing to help us focus, the Enemy is stronger and can make our minds to wander.

----------


## erowe1

> I stand before an icon and pray to the person depicted. It is a visual that helps focus my mind as if I were standing before the person depicted. When we close our eyes or have nothing to help us focus, the Enemy is stronger and can make our minds to wander.


How is that different than praying to the image?

----------


## erowe1

> No, I don't advocate object worship, God alone is deserving of our worship. We pay reverence to the icon because of the person that it depicts. I'll let the Church Fathers sum it up:


Where is this from?

I assume it's a single individual, not "the Church fathers."

At any rate, what that quote describes, I see no way to call something other than idolatry. This is the kind of thing that I have been arguing with you about here that does not go back to the apostolic Church. Things like those pictures from the Dura Europa church do not support this view (although, depending how late those pictures were made, they might be from a time when Christians did practice it). The theology expressed in that quote is a late innovation, and not something that the apostles taught either in their writings or orally.

----------


## erowe1

All idolatry throughout history has used the idols as representations of something else. It's not just that the worship of a graven image as a god in and of itself is wrong, but worshiping it as a representative of something else is ok. All idols represent something else. And as representations of something else that is worshiped, they're still wrong.

Nor does it become ok if that thing they represent is the one true triune God, the creator of the universe, the God of Abraham, who revealed himself to us through his son Jesus Christ. This is what the Israelites did with the golden calf. It wasn't that they were worshiping some other god besides the one who brought them out of Egypt. It's that they were worshiping the very God who did bring them out of Egypt, but that they did so by representing him with a manmade image.

I have trouble seeing how those Israelites couldn't just have said, "We're not worshiping the image itself. We're just using it to focus our worship." Or they could have given the same argument that was given by that person in post 91. I think the reason they couldn't say those things is that those would have been lame excuses.

----------


## Matthew5

> How is that different than praying to the image?


Because that phrasing implies you're praying to the wood itself. Just like two pieces of a wood can be thrown into the fire, when we combine those two pieces of wood in the shape of a cross, it becomes something significant. 




> Where is this from?
> 
> I assume it's a Church father, not "the Church fathers."
> 
> At any rate, what that quote describes, I see no way to call something other than idolatry. This is the kind of thing that I have been arguing with you about here that does not go back to the apostolic Church. Things like those pictures from the Dura Europa church do not support this view (although, depending how late those pictures were made, they might be from a time when Christians did practice it).


No, "FatherS" is correct. This is from the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The Dura Europa images are indeed from the 200s and imagery in the faith has a history going back to the Old Testament. The Apostolic Church (which is the Orthodox Church of the Councils) didn't stop using imagery briefly and it was revitalized 200 years later. 

History has also recorded this most famous icon made by Christ Himself:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Image_Not-made-by-hands

----------


## eduardo89

> That's good to hear.
> 
> Like I said above, I have seen people very clearly praying to manmade physical depictions of Jesus.
> 
> Can you point me to any official RC document that would condemn that, in case I get a chance to discuss that with someone who does it?


The Second Council of Nicaea would be a good start, as well as Libri Carolini.

The Council of Trent also has this short section:




> ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS, OF SAlNTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES.
> 
> The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.
> 
> Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; *not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent;* in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
> 
> And the bishops shall carefully teach this, that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be anathema.
> 
> And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if at times, when expedient for the unlettered people; it happen that the facts and narratives of sacred Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be seen by the eyes of the body, or be portrayed by colours or figures.
> ...





> Also, what does it mean to use them to focus your prayer?


Here's an example, when I pray the Rosary I use each bead of every decade to help me focus on a specific aspect of each of the Mysteries. For example, on Mondays I'll ponder on the five Joyful Mysteries (the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation in the Temple, the Finding in the Temple). Using the first decade each bead will represent a part of the Annunciation:




> 1.  The Angel Gabriel was sent from God....to a virgin betrothed to a man, named Joseph, of the house of David.  
> The virgin's name was Mary.  (Lk. 1: 26-27)  - Then say a Hail Mary...
> 2.  The angel said to her:  "Rejoice O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you.  Blessed are you among 
> women."  (Lk. 1: 28)  - Then say a Hail Mary...
> 3.  She was deeply troubled by his words, and wondered what his greeting meant.  (Lk. 1: 29)  - Then say a Hail Mary...
> 4.  The angel said to her: "Do not fear, Mary.  You have found favor with God."  (Lk. 1: 30)  - Then say a Hail Mary...
> 5.  "You shall conceive and bear a son and give him the name of Jesus."  (Lk. 1: 31)  - Then say a Hail Mary...
> 6.  "Great will be his dignity and he will be called Son of the Most High.  And His reign will be without end."  
> (Lk. 1: 32-33)  - Then say a Hail Mary...
> ...


The Rosary simply helps me keep focused while I pray. I'm not praying to the Rosary, that would be idolatry, the Rosary is just an object.

Same when I look I pray while looking at a Crucifix, it helps remind me of of Jesus' passionate love and self-giving sacrifice.




> I would think that if a young Christian were given some image of Jesus and told to use it to focus their prayer, praying to the image would be the natural thing for them to do. How could it focus their prayer without them doing that?


Why would having a picture of Jesus and praying "Dear Jesus..." somehow be praying to a piece of paper? How does the paper somehow become the object of your prayer? Would the young Christian be asking the paper for strength and guidance? Would the young Christian be thanking the paper for its sacrifice? That just doesn't make sense to me.

----------


## erowe1

> Because that phrasing implies you're praying to the wood itself.


No it doesn't.

When the ten commandments condemn worshiping graven images of anything in Earth or Heaven, they're not condemning worshiping the wood and the stone itself. They're condemning praying to anything or anyone, even including God himself, through the representation of a graven image.

----------


## Matthew5

> No it doesn't.
> 
> When the ten commandments condemn worshiping graven images of anything in Earth or Heaven, they're not condemning worshiping the wood and the stone itself. They're condemning praying to anything or anyone, even including God himself, through the representation of a graven image.


Nope.




> The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated "graven images" mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment.  Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews—and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as _"eidoloi",_ i.e. "idols." Furthermore the Hebrew word _pesel_ is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.
>   Let's look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely:
>    "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven   image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the   earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to   them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command.  If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all images—then even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol.  So either every Protestant with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
>   Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what this text actually says about them.  You shall not make x,  you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x.  If x = image, then the  Temple itself violates this Commandment.  If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons.

----------


## erowe1

> Why would having a picture of Jesus and praying "Dear Jesus..." somehow be praying to a piece of paper? How does the paper somehow become the object of your prayer? Would the young Christian be asking the paper for strength and guidance? Would the young Christian be thanking the paper for its sacrifice? That just doesn't make sense to me.


What else would that image possibly be than the object of your prayer?

It wouldn't be the piece of paper you're praying to as a piece of paper in and of itself. It would be praying to it as somehow representative of Jesus.

To do that would clearly be idolatry. In fact, that would be exactly what idolatry has only ever been.

Ancient Israelites worshipping Asherah poles didn't believe they were worshiping pieces of wood. They believed they were worshiping Asherah, whom those pieces of wood represented. When ancient Israelites worshiped their golden calf, they didn't think they were worshiping a piece of gold, they were using that golden calf to represent the God who brought them out of Egypt. But their conceptions of these graven images as merely representing someone else didn't make their actions any less idolatrous.

----------


## TER

> All idolatry throughout history has used the idols as representations of something else. It's not just that the worship of a graven image as a god in and of itself is wrong, but worshiping it as a representative of something else is ok. All idols represent something else. And as representations of something else that is worshiped, they're still wrong.
> 
> Nor does it become ok if that thing they represent is the one true triune God, the creator of the universe, the God of Abraham, who revealed himself to us through his son Jesus Christ. This is what the Israelites did with the golden calf. It wasn't that they were worshiping some other god besides the one who brought them out of Egypt. It's that they were worshiping the very God who did bring them out of Egypt, but that they did so by representing him with a manmade image.
> 
> I have trouble seeing how those Israelites couldn't just have said, "We're not worshiping the image itself. We're just using it to focus our worship." Or they could have given the same argument that was given by that person in post 91. I think the reason they couldn't say those things is that those would have been lame excuses.


I think this is where our misunderstanding is erowe.  When the Israelites made and worshiped the golden calf, they believed the structure itself was a god.  Idols are NOT representatives of something else.  The are the deities themselves.  Thus it was common in pagan Rome to have a sculpture of a diety in the house which was worshiped as a god.  Note, not that it represented some other god, but that the amulet/sculpture/statue itself was a god.  

Christians do NOT worship the icon or the material, but see it in a very different way, that of a symbol or image of the divine.  What is worshiped is Christ, and not the icon or the wood or the paint.  You need to stop repeating this as this is not the way Christians use icons in worship.

----------


## eduardo89

> No it doesn't.
> 
> When the ten commandments condemn worshiping graven images of anything in Earth or Heaven, they're not condemning worshiping the wood and the stone itself. They're condemning praying to anything or anyone, even including God himself, through the representation of a graven image.


And how is an icon a graven image? For something to be a graven image it must be an idol and must be worshipped. It is impossible for an icon or other religious image to be a graven image if it is not the object of worship. You also conveniently left out the command not to serve the image/idol. Catholics and Orthodox do not serve the icons and other religious imagery which we use to help us pray to God.

----------


## eduardo89

> What else would that image possibly be than the object of your prayer?
> 
> It wouldn't be the piece of paper you're praying to as a piece of paper in and of itself. It would be praying to it as somehow representative of Jesus.
> 
> To do that would clearly be idolatry. In fact, that would be exactly what idolatry has only ever been.


No, it the paper is not representative of Jesus. It simply reminds us of Him and His love and sacrifice. We do not believe the paper has some sort of special connection to Him or some special power. 

Go back up and read what I posted from the Council of Trent and my explanation of how using a Rosary helps me pray.

Edit, I'll add the most relevant section here:




> Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; *not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent;* in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.

----------


## erowe1

> Nope.


That quote says, "If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment."

That's not true. No images in the Temple were to be worshiped. When Israel did worship idols in their Temple, they were clearly condemned and punished for it.

Note also, that when they did that, they never conceived of their worship of those idols as the worship of pieces of stone in and of themselves. They conceived of it as worship of God. But in representing him with graven images in that worship they violated his Law.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it the paper is not representative of Jesus. It simply reminds us of Him and His love and sacrifice. We do not believe the paper has some sort of special connection to Him or some special power. 
> 
> Go back up and read what I posted from the Council of Trent and my explanation of how using a Rosary helps me pray.


That quote sure looks like it's saying the images do represent Christ and Mary and so on, not just that they remind people of them.

Do you have anything more clear that I can use if I want to show somebody that the RCC does not advocate using images as representative of Jesus when they pray to him?

----------


## TER

> That did seem to be the purpose of the OP. But my understanding of your whole point this entire time has been that you did advocate praying to and worshiping images. If that's not the case, then what have you been arguing?
> 
> Looking back, I tried to get a clear answer from you on that point, and never got one. You also did pretty clearly advocate kissing images of Jesus. In what way would that not be idolatry?


I have a picture of my grandmother who died years ago.  I treasure that picture of her.  I take care of it.  When I wish to focus my thoughts on her and remember her, I take it out and look at it, and smile (sometimes with tears in my eye).  I kiss her face on the picture and hold it close to my breast and think of her and long for her presence.  Does this mean I worship my grandmother?  Does it mean I worship the plastic and ink that the picture is made of?  Of course not!   Likewise with icons, the wood or the paint is not worshipped, the material icon is not idolized.  What is venerated is the person whose image is on it (in the case of the saints).   In the case of God (Who ALONE is worshipped), it is not the image of Christ or the icon which is worshipped, but Christ Himself Who is worshipped with the icon only being a means for us to concentrate our thoughts and focus our prayers, just as the picture of my grandmother helps me to focus my thoughts and remembrance of her.  If you can pray and focus your prayer without the use of an icon, great!  Christians are told to pray unceasingly, so of course for the most part our prayers are not before an icon (otherwise, how would we here living in the world do the things we have to do that must be done during the day!)  If one feels uncomfortable with icons, then don't use them!  No one will judge your eternal soul on this!

----------


## Matthew5

> That quote says, "If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment."
> 
> That's not true. No images in the Temple were to be worshiped. When Israel did worship idols in their Temple, they were clearly condemned and punished for it.
> 
> Note also, that when they did that, they never conceived of their worship of those idols as the worship of pieces of stone in and of themselves. They conceived of it as worship of God. But in representing him with graven images in that worship they violated his Law.


What's your definition of worship?

----------


## erowe1

> It is impossible for an icon or other religious image to be a graven image if it is not the object of worship.


I agree. That is precisely the point of contention here.

As long as it is not worshiped, it is not idolatry.

----------


## TER

Erowe, I understand where you are coming from.  But you do not understand where we are coming from.  Have you read the great treatise by St. John Damascus?  If we are going to come to some understanding, wont it be good for you to at least read the defense we point to?  You dont want me to say you you believe - fine!  But please do not say you know what I believe or what I worship.

----------


## erowe1

> What's your definition of worship?


In the ancient Israelite context it was offering sacrifices, incense, prayers, and songs. At least those are some of the things that were legitimate forms of worship of the true God, when done without representing him with images.

In the Church, we are to worship God with our whole lives in every time and place. We have no special times or locations for worship.

However, we still do pray to God as one aspect of our lives of worship. And in praying to God, just like the ancient Israelites, we are not to pray to physical representations of him. Kissing Jesus is not a part of Christian worship in the first place, and has not been ever since his ascension to Heaven. However, kissing some physical representation that is ostensibly of him, with the idea that in kissing it we are kissing him, would clearly be idolatry, just as much as offering a gift to the golden calf representation of God was.

----------


## erowe1

> Have you read the great treatise by St. John Damascus?  If we are going to come to some understanding, wont it be good for you to at least read the defense we point to?  You dont want me to say you you believe - fine!  But please do not say you know what I believe or what I worship.


I've read snippets of it.

I don't think that I've said that I know what you believe or worship.

I did say that I've seen people pray to images of Jesus. But I don't claim that you are one of them.

----------


## eduardo89

> That quote sure looks like it's saying the images do represent Christ and Mary and so on, not just that they remind people of them.
> 
> Do you have anything more clear that I can use if I want to show somebody that the RCC does not advocate using images as representative of Jesus when they pray to him?


I don't see how that excerpt from the Council of Trent could be unclear. We do not worship the sacred images, they have no divinity or virtue. We are not to ask the images for anything for they can give us nothing, we are not to place our trust in them for they are mere images. 




> I agree. That is precisely the point of contention here.
> 
> As long as it is not worshiped, it is not idolatry.


Ok and we agree, so there is no point of contention here. We do not worship images, so we do not commit idolatry.

----------


## erowe1

> What is venerated is the person whose image is on it (in the case of the saints).   In the case of God (Who ALONE is worshipped), it is not the image of Christ or the icon which is worshipped


All three of you have made this exact point.

But that is exactly what idolatry always was. It was never the wood or stone in and of itself that was worshipped. It was always as a representation of a god, or even the one true God.

There's nothing wrong with kissing your Grandmother. I can't quite sympathize with the desire to kiss the picture of someone I love, dead or alive. But it wouldn't be idolatry, if that kiss is intended as a symbol for the love you have for them as a person. However, if you kissed that image of your grandmother, with a kiss that you understood to be a gift to God, or an expression of the unsurpassed love that you owe to Him alone, then that would be idolatry. And replacing that picture of your grandmother with a picture of Jesus wouldn't change that.

----------


## Matthew5

Ok, let's approach it from another angle, erowe. Do you believe the Holy Spirit was active in putting together the Bible in the fourth century?

----------


## erowe1

> I don't see how that excerpt from the Council of Trent could be unclear. We do not worship the sacred images, they have no divinity or virtue. We are not to ask the images for anything for they can give us nothing, we are not to place our trust in them for they are mere images.


Right. But nobody would think that anybody does worship mere images. No idolators ever think they worship mere images.

The thing that I was saying that it did not clearly say was the other point you made, which was that these images are not even thought to be representative of the object of worship. I saw nothing in the quote from Trent that said anything as clear along those lines as what you said. And it appeared to me to support the view that the images DO represent the object of worship.

Honestly, I feel like if I showed that quote to somebody praying to an image of Jesus, they'd just read it and say, "Yeah, that's what I'm doing, exactly what that says." Even the part you bolded says, "the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent." That really looks to me like it supports worshiping images as representative of God, which is the precise thing you said is not to be done.

----------


## erowe1

> Ok, let's approach it from another angle, erowe. Do you believe the Holy Spirit was active in putting together the Bible in the fourth century?


No. The books of the Bible were all written long before that. Check any early church father from before the 4th century, you'll see them quoting the Bible all the time. We also have many manuscripts of the Bible from earlier than that.

You probably mean something else by "put together." But I can't tell what.

You have me stumped though. I'm waiting to see how this is going to become a way of approaching the topic of the OP from a different angle.

----------


## Matthew5

> No. The books of the Bible were all written long before that. Check any early church father from before the 4th century, you'll see them quoting the Bible all the time.


Yes, I understand that Gospels and Epistles were written as early as 50 AD, but that's not what I asked. Was the Holy Spirit active in gathering these writings into a canon that we call The Bible?

----------


## eduardo89

> Right. But nobody would think that anybody does worship mere images. No idolators ever think they worship mere images.
> 
> The thing that I was saying that it did not clearly say was the other point you made, which was that, these images are not even thought to be representative of the object of worship. I saw nothing in the quote from Trent that said anything as clear along those lines as what you said. And it appeared to me to support the view that the images DO represent the object of worship.


A crucifix is as representative of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as a picture of my grandmother is representative of my grandmother. If by represent you mean to illustrate or to depict, then yes. If by represent you mean to stand in its place, then no.

----------


## erowe1

> A crucifix is as representative of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as a picture of my grandmother is representative of my grandmother. If by represent you mean to illustrate or to depict, then yes. If by represent you mean to stand in its place, then no.


Unfortunately, that quote from Trent doesn't put it like that.

----------


## TER

> Where in the Acts of John does that passage come from? And what's your basis for saying it's second century?
> 
> ETA:
> I hunted it down. It comes from sections 26-29 of the book.
> In the introduction to the Acts of John in the standard scholarly edition of the New Testament Apocrypha, the author of that section argues that the Acts of John was written in the 3rd century. He's rather tentative about it. Its earliest attestation by Christian writers is in the 4th century.
> 
> If we accept the 3rd century date, then this is our earliest evidence for Christian veneration of icons.


I have a question for you erowe...  From what I am gathering, it seems your belief is that icons were considered idolatry (even though you have no evidence for this.  I repeat, you have no evidence for this.  Indeed, the only evidence you could claim is from a heretical gnostic writting of the 3rd century).

But then when did it change?  When it is first mentioned as practice in a preserved writing?  Or maybe 10 years earlier?  Or maybe 20 years earlier?  But why not 300 years earlier?

And if you still believe it somehow sprung up and overcame the Church and the Holy Spirit which guides the Church, how did it happen?  There certainly was not any council which proclaimed this.  In fact, it isn't until the 8th century when this is deliberated upon and unanimously proclaimed in an Ecumencial Council, bringing the bishops spread far and wide.

So then tell me, how did this happen?  How do you fantasize that the Church would go into such an error (as you imagine it to be) across the far away lands?  Do you believe something as controversial (in your mind) would just simply become the accpeted practice without any fanfare or arguments?  So the Christians living in India would one day hear the the Christians in Jerusalem were commiting idolatry and then willy nilly accept it?  Do you think the early Christians living in India were such weak minded men?  

Do you think it is also only coincidence that the churches in the oldest cities described in Acts do indeed cover their temples with icons of the Lord and images of the saints who pray for us daily before the throne of Christ?  Do you think the Holy Spirit so weak as to allow the Church of the Martyrs to simply fall into such error?

And yet in the Church which was built over the cave in which Christ was born glorifies Him in beauty and reverence, and lift up incense and chant the Psalms and pray in one faith and in one mind 'Glory to God!'
And in the Church built over the place He resurrected, the same worship and the same songs are sung unto God, again in one mind and one accord.

If people feel threatened or so weak that they will begin to worship the wood and paint or the icon, then by all means, these people should NOT use icons in their worship.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, I understand that Gospels and Epistles were written as early as 50 AD, but that's not what I asked. Was the Holy Spirit active in gathering these writings into a canon that we call The Bible?


They were the canon from the very moment they were written. It's not like these were just ordinary books and then at some point after being ordinary books for a long time they became the holy scriptures. But what do you mean by "gathering"?

Do you mean when people made physical books that bound all these books together in one book cover?

----------


## TER

> I've read snippets of it.
> 
> I don't think that I've said that I know what you believe or worship.
> 
> I did say that I've seen people pray to images of Jesus. But I don't claim that you are one of them.


If you wish to find what I believe, then read from the Fathers of the Church.
Now, tell  me where I can find _what_ you believe?

----------


## Matthew5

> They were the canon from the very moment they were written. It's not like these were just ordinary books and then at some point after being ordinary books for a long time they became the holy scriptures. But what do you mean by "gathering"?
> 
> Do you mean when people made physical books that bound all these books together in one book cover?


So how did the gnostic books get weeded out?

----------


## eduardo89

> Unfortunately, that quote from Trent doesn't put it like that.


Except it does. I honestly don't understand how you can read that and not understand it. It clearly says that sacred images do not posses any divinity or virtue, that they are illustrations and the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent, not to the image itself. They do not substitute or stand in place of God, Mary, or the Saints.

----------


## TER

> All three of you have made this exact point.
> 
> But that is exactly what idolatry always was. It was never the wood or stone in and of itself that was worshipped. It was always as a representation of a god, or even the one true God.


Again, I think you are wrong.  The object itself was what was worshiped!  The pagan statues were in fact considered to be gods.  This was never the practice of the Christians.

----------


## eduardo89

> Again, I think you are wrong.  The object itself was what was worshiped!  The pagan statues were in fact considered to be gods.  This was never the practice of the Christians.


Exactly and that is why the Council of Trent mentions this:

not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; *or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols*; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent;

----------


## eduardo89

I think this priest explains it well:






> The Catholic Church does not adore images, statues, or paintings. Rather, we honor and love what they represent.

----------


## TER

The theology behind iconography pertains to Christ having become Incarnate.  Having the Son of God now revealed and seen and known, He has revealed God and sanctified the creation He first created.  All things are now good to eat.  All things can be used for the good.  The Holy Spirit has filled all of creation and now is present in creation and acts upon creation.  This is how we become sanctified by Holy Baptism and become living temples of the Holy Spirit.  And now, just as it happened in the Old Testament, the bones of the saints perform miracles.  The flesh of the saints stay incorrupt.  The relics and icons of the Church stream myrrh.  This is not the icon which does it, it is the Holy Spirit in the icon which performs it.  The history of the Church is filled with innumerable miracles which attest to the presence of the Holy Spirit in creation since the Day of Pentecost.  But unfortunately many remain skeptical and ignore God's great working in the history of the Church of Christ.

Nevertheless, the theology is rich in the writings mentioned earlier which you seem not to want to read. I urge you to make the effort and then we can speak more familiarly.

----------


## eduardo89

> The theology behind iconography pertains to Christ having become Incarnate.  Having had now the Son of God revealed and seen and known, He has revealed God and sanctified the creation He first created.  All things are now good to eat.  All things can be used for the good.  The Holy Spirit has filled all of creation and now is present in creation and acts upon creation.  This is how we become sanctified by Holy Baptism and living temples of the Holy Spirit.  And now, just as it happened in the Old Testament, the bones of the saints perform miracles.  The flesh of the saints stay incorrupt.  The relics and icons of the Church stream myrrh.  This is not the icon which does it, it is the Holy Spirit in the icon which performs it.  The history of the Church is filled with innumerable miracles which attest to the presence of the Holy Spirit in creation since the Day of Pentecost.  But unfortunately many remain skeptical and ignore God's great working in the history of the Church of Christ.
> 
> Nevertheless, the theology is rich in the writings mentioned earlier which you seem not to want to read. I urge you to make the effort and then we can speak more familiarly.


I think you might enjoy this:

*The Theology of the Icon* 
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com...ration-of.html

----------


## TER

> I think you might enjoy this:
> 
> *The Theology of the Icon* 
> http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com...ration-of.html


OUTSTANDING article!!!!!

----------


## TER

I think it interesting to note that the Jewish rabbis (before, during, and after the time of Christ) would kiss the Torah before they opened it and after closing it.  Does anyone believe that they were idolators and worshiped the scrolls?

----------


## TER

> They were the canon from the very moment they were written. It's not like these were just ordinary books and then at some point after being ordinary books for a long time they became the holy scriptures. But what do you mean by "gathering"?
> 
> Do you mean when people made physical books that bound all these books together in one book cover?


But (and correct me if I am wrong) your church has rejected books that the earlier churches of which it came from has considered canonical.  How do you account for that?

----------


## eduardo89

> OUTSTANDING article!!!!!


You will also probably enjoy this video which shows how an icon is written and what it all represents and why:






> Process of iconlogycal process of the prosopon school of Iconology.


I remember watching it last year, and it was very interesting and informative.

----------


## Matthew5

> I think it interesting to note that the Jewish rabbis (before, during, and after the time of Christ) would kiss the Torah before they opened it and after closing it.  Does anyone believe that they were idolators and worshiped the scrolls?


Which means that Jesus did this Himself, correct?

----------


## erowe1

> I have a question for you erowe...  From what I am gathering, it seems your belief is that icons were considered idolatry


No. That is absolutely not my belief. I have been completely clear this whole time that idolatry only exists when images are worshiped (and this includes being worshiped as representative of God). I have nothing against pictures (i.e. icons) in general.




> But then when did it change?  When it is first mentioned as practice in a preserved writing?  Or maybe 10 years earlier?  Or maybe 20 years earlier?  But why not 300 years earlier?


I'm not sure what change you're asking for.

You have said in this thread that your denomination does not support worshipping icons. So, if that is correct, then it never did change. This belief that I have, and that the apostolic church had that images are not to be worshiped is the same belief that you have and that the Church has always had.

I think the question is, when did this other view first come about, namely the view expressed by John of Damascus in the 8th century, that it is ok for Christians to venerate images, by giving them one kind of worship (proskuno), while not another (latreia).

I can't pin down precisely when and where that view came about. It looks like there must have been some Christians who had a view something like that when the Acts of John were written, so probably it already existed by some point in the third century. Did any Christians do anything like that as early as the time of Origen in the early third century? I can't say for sure. But if they did, I don't think Origen knew about it, so, at the very least it was not common practice throughout the Church. And earlier than that we have no evidence of any Christians practicing anything like that at all. What we can say is that it wasn't something that belonged to the traditional practice of the Church going back to the time of the apostles.




> And if you still believe it somehow sprung up and overcame the Church and the Holy Spirit which guides the Church, how did it happen?  There certainly was not any council which proclaimed this.  In fact, it isn't until the 8th century when this is deliberated upon and unanimously proclaimed in an Ecumencial Council, bringing the bishops spread far and wide.


Your language confuses me again. Since you claim that your denomination does not believe in worshiping images, why would there even be any question of it overcoming "the church"?

Taking John of Damascus's pro-idolatry position as that of the bishops assembled in that 8th century Nicean synod, we can say that their view had a long history stretching back, probably as far even as the third century. It started out as a minority position, rare enough that, if it existed anywhere at all in Origen's day, he knew nothing about it, and grew in popularity over 5 centuries. But something developing over 5 centuries is not something that "just sprung up" to use your words. And, as you know, that 8th century synod did not represent the unanimous opinion of Christians of that day, since its whole point was to shut down the iconoclasts, who were so extreme as to be, not just anti-idolatry, but positively anti-icon.

I think the best way to explain its growth in popularity of idolatry among professing Christians is that among the various kinds of Christianity that existed, some of whom were more comfortable with worshiping images in the way that John of Damascus advocates than others, the Christians who succeeded at accruing the most political power to themselves, were among those who supported a view like John of Damascus, until finally they won the day (at least for Christians who were under the authority of the bishops involved) in 8th century Nicea.

Now go back to look at an earlier synod of a bunch of bishops (in my opinion, not very unlike the one that happened in 8th century Nicea). This one was much earlier, in AD 305-306, in Elvira Spain. It was also a synod of bishops claiming a succession of ordination going back to the apostles, and believing themselves to be passers-on of the holy traditions of the Church. Thus, it was probably only a few decades later than time the Acts of John was written. And, like the Acts of John, it reflects a background in which there seems not to have been unanimity about the use of images in worship. In this early synod, these bishops, expressing their understanding of holy tradition, said the following:



> 36.     Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.


http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Ca...viraCanons.htm

I don't completely agree with those bishops at that synod of Elvira. I think certain uses of images will not run a risk of them being worshiped or adored, especially when they are used educationally. However, I think they probably come closer to an accurate statement of the faith of the apostles that was once for all delivered to the saints than those other bishops 400 years later in Nicea. And I appreciate the fear these bishops at Elvira had, especially when it comes to people kissing images of Jesus, or looking at them when they pray to the one those images represent so as to "focus their prayers."

----------


## TER

The monks spend their entire time praying to God while they 'write' the icon, notably the Jesus Prayer which is 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, the sinner'

The entire process can take weeks!  

The entire art is connected to worship towards God and glorifying Him through the materials and the skills He has showered upon them.  It is an offering back to God in order to glorify Him in thanksgiving, - indeed, a eucharistic communion translated not merely in words on papers (as the Scriptures were written down), but as symbols on canvas.

----------


## erowe1

> But (and correct me if I am wrong) your church has rejected books that the earlier churches of which it came from has considered canonical.  How do you account for that?


Throughout the entire history of Christianity there have been many different lists of exactly which books are the ones that belong to the Bible, to the exclusion of all others. There are many such lists today. There never has been a time that there weren't. And there has never been any single watershed moment at which any such list was finally and definitively settled (except in the Roman Catholic Church which had such a moment, but not until the 1500s).

When I look for which books are scripture, what I'm looking for is the Bible of the apostolic church. This includes the books they received as scripture, and the books they wrote as scripture.

----------


## erowe1

> I think it interesting to note that the Jewish rabbis (before, during, and after the time of Christ) would kiss the Torah before they opened it and after closing it.  Does anyone believe that they were idolators and worshiped the scrolls?


Source?

----------


## TER

> Throughout the entire history of Christianity there have been many different lists of exactly which books are the ones that belong to the Bible, to the exclusion of all others. There are many such lists today. There never has been a time that there weren't. And there has never been any single watershed moment at which any such list was finally and definitively settled (except in the Roman Catholic Church which had such a moment, but not until the 1500s).
> 
> When I look for which books are scripture, what I'm looking for is the Bible of the apostolic church. This includes the books they received as scripture, and the books they wrote as scripture.


And which books were those?

----------


## erowe1

> Again, I think you are wrong.  The object itself was what was worshiped!  The pagan statues were in fact considered to be gods.  This was never the practice of the Christians.


No. That's not correct. Those worshiping a statue of Zeus did not believe that Zeus was a stone. All idolatry has always been the worship of an image as a representative of some god, not as the thing itself. Again, compare this to the golden calf. The fact that the Israelites were worshiping the God who brought them out of Egypt did not make their idolatry any less idolatrous.

----------


## erowe1

> And which books were those?


The Pentateuch, the Prophets, including the historical books, and the Writings (these are the books accepted by the Pharisees of Israel at the time of Jesus, which are the same as those still circulating today as the Hebrew Bible). Plus the 27 books of the New Testament, about which we probably agree.

----------


## TER

> I think it interesting to note that the Jewish rabbis (before, during, and after the time of Christ) would kiss the Torah before they opened it and after closing it.  Does anyone believe that they were idolators and worshiped the scrolls?





> Source?


I have read it several sources, I cant remember exactly.  Here is one I quickly found on internet, but I am confident it was indeed practiced by the Jews at the time of Christ.

----------


## eduardo89

> When I look for which books are scripture, what I'm looking for is the Bible of the apostolic church. This includes the books they received as scripture, and the books they wrote as scripture.


So you include 1 & 2 Maccabees then? What about Tobit and Judith? Or Baruch?

----------


## erowe1

> So you include 1 & 2 Maccabees then? What about Tobit and Judith? Or Baruch?


No. I don't include any of those.

----------


## erowe1

> but I am confident it was indeed practiced by the Jews at the time of Christ.


If you're confident of it, then you should be able to point to specific evidence.

That's not the kind of thing I would be confident of without having actual evidence for it.

----------


## TER

> No. That's not correct. Those worshiping a statue of Zeus did not believe that Zeus was a stone. All idolatry has always been the worship of an image as a representative of some god, not as the thing itself. Again, compare this to the golden calf. The fact that the Israelites were worshiping the God who brought them out of Egypt did not make their idolatry any less idolatrous.


The believers in the gods of the Greeks and the Romans were certainly pagans, but even greater pagans then them existed.  For everyone had gods, Zeus being one god of a innumerable amount across the scattered lands.  People believed in mulititudes of gods and their own gods they worshiped indeed made of stone and clay.

----------


## TER

> If you're confident of it, then you should be able to point to specific evidence.
> 
> That's not the kind of thing I would be confident of without having actual evidence for it.


Well, I don't think we read the same writings.

----------


## TER

> No. I don't include any of those.


Why dont you include those in your church's canon?

----------


## TER

> What we can say is that it wasn't something that belonged to the traditional practice of the Church going back to the time of the apostles.


No, according to your standards, we cannot say that unless you can show me the proof that it was not the traditional practice.

----------


## eduardo89

> No. I don't include any of those.


Yet you claim to accept the Bible of the Apostolic Church.

Could you give your definition of the "Apostolic Church" and when it seems to have ended?

----------


## Matthew5

> I have read it several sources, I cant remember exactly.  Here is one I quickly found on internet, but I am confident it was indeed practiced by the Jews at the time of Christ.





> "The Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tefillin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm.  He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue.  No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue."


Christ Himself venerated holy items.

----------


## Matthew5

> Yet you claim to accept the Bible of the Apostolic Church.
> 
> Could you give your definition of the "Apostolic Church" and when it seems to have ended?


I'd like to know when erowe claims the Holy Spirit left the church, obviously some time after the 4th century?

----------


## TER

Idolatry - wiki link

"In short, the proper Jewish definition of idolatry is to do an act of worship toward any created thing, to believe that a particular created thing is an independent power, or to make something a mediator between ourselves and the Almighty. These laws are codified in the Mishneh Torah"

This is the Jewish understanding for reference.

----------


## fr33

Didn't read the posts but when you have a religion that saves bones and other memorabilia like the Catholic church does, you do have to consider the idol aspect.

Funny story:

My dad told me this a few weeks ago at a birthday party for one of my uncles.

When another uncle of mine was 5, he had symptoms of asthma. A priest gave my grandma a bag of dirt that he claimed was from St Peter's tomb to wear around his neck. She walked into his bedroom one day and his mouth was covered in the dirt. He ate it.

----------


## RJB

> Didn't read the posts but when you have a religion that saves bones and other memorabilia like the Catholic church does, you do have to consider the idol aspect.


Personally I'm very skeptical, to me they remind me too much of rabbits feet and other superstition.  However a woman was healed touching the hem of Jesus' clothes--  in this case it was her faith more than the garment. 

Relics aren't worshipped BTW, but here are some scriptural occasions.




> 2 Kings 13:20-21
>  And Eliseus died, and they buried him. And the rovers from Moab came into the land the same year.
> 
> 21 And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.


And people were healed by St Paul's clothing




> Acts 19:11 And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles.
> 
> 12 So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.

----------


## RJB

> All idolatry has always been the worship of an image as a representative of some god, not as the thing itself.


Exactly.  However, Mary and the Saints are not God nor are they worshipped.  Comparing an image of a Saint to Zeus is apples and oranges.  

The closest your point comes would be the worship of Jesus with his image.  However Jesus was not a mythical diety like Zeus.  He was literally a flesh and blood historical figure as any of your family members.  So we do have physical reminders of him, i.e. the cross, artistic interpretations (they didn't have digital cameras back then.), etc. as you would a family member.

Another big difference is that Jesus is the Christian God.  Last I checked, Zeus isn't.  

Jesus our Lord and Savior is worshipped.  The image of Jesus is not worshipped.    It may be kissed as you'd kiss the photo of your wife-- unless you consider kissing a photo of your wife to be adultery.

----------


## erowe1

> The believers in the gods of the Greeks and the Romans were certainly pagans, but even greater pagans then them existed.  For everyone had gods, Zeus being one god of a innumerable amount across the scattered lands.  People believed in mulititudes of gods and their own gods they worshiped indeed made of stone and clay.


I'm not sure how you mean this as a response to what I said.

Do you consider this statue of Zeus to be not an idol, just because those who worshiped it understood it to represent Zeus, rather than to be the very Zeus himself?

Idolatry is not, and never has been, about the worship of stones and wood in and of themselves. It has always been the worship of gods represented by those graven images.

----------


## erowe1

> Yet you claim to accept the Bible of the Apostolic Church.
> 
> Could you give your definition of the "Apostolic Church" and when it seems to have ended?


I mean the apostles themselves. The church they founded hasn't ended yet. But when I said the apostolic church, I meant the church of the apostolic generation.

----------


## erowe1

> Why dont you include those in your church's canon?


Because Jesus and the apostles didn't.

----------


## erowe1

> No, according to your standards, we cannot say that unless you can show me the proof that it was not the traditional practice.


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that when we weigh the available evidence, that is the conclusion we must draw.

When we look back to the time of Origen and find that, if anyone at all held that view in his day, he was unaware of it, then we must conclude that, wherever those 8th century Christians who made it the official practice of a very large part of Christendom got it, it wasn't from some continuous tradition of the universal Church going back to the apostles.

It's not merely that we lack proof of it being such a tradition. We positively have proof that it was not.

----------


## erowe1

> Christ Himself venerated holy items.


Why do you believe this?

----------


## erowe1

> The closest your point comes would be the worship of Jesus with his image.  However Jesus was not a mythical diety like Zeus.


The God who brought Israel out of Egypt was not mythical either. That fact did not make them any less idolatrous when they worshiped him with an image of a golden calf.

----------


## erowe1

> Idolatry - wiki link
> 
> "In short, the proper Jewish definition of idolatry is to do an act of worship toward any created thing, to believe that a particular created thing is an independent power, or to make something a mediator between ourselves and the Almighty. These laws are codified in the Mishneh Torah"
> 
> This is the Jewish understanding for reference.


Notice what comes after "or."

----------


## RJB

> The God who brought Israel out of Egypt was not mythical either. That fact did not make them any less idolatrous when they worshiped him with an image of a golden calf.


So the God who brought them out of Egypt was a calf?  I was not familiar with that.  Please elaborate.

----------


## erowe1

> So the God who brought them out of Egypt was a calf?  I was not familiar with that.  Please elaborate.


They made an image of him in the form of a golden calf. You can read about this in Exodus 32. It is the most famous account of idolatry in the Bible, the sin for which Israel was condemned more than any other in the Old Testament, and the one that becomes the archetype for all idolatry.

They were wrong to represent him that way, or any other way. The reason they were condemned had nothing to do with the accuracy of the facsimile.

Jesus also didn't look like these carved stones. But I've still seen people pray to them.


I don't see how that would be different than if they prayed to an image of Jesus depicting him as bread of life, or a bright morning star, or chief cornerstone, or a lamb, or a calf.

----------


## RJB

> They made an image of him in the form of a golden calf. You can read about this in Exodus 32.


It says:
Exodus32:23 They said to me: Make us *gods*, that may go before us: for as to this Moses, who brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is befallen him.




> I don't see how that would be different than if they prayed to an image of Jesus depicting him as bread of life, or a bright morning star, or chief cornerstone, or a lamb, or a calf.


For one they don't pray to the image.  2nd is kissing a photo of your wife adultery?

----------


## erowe1

> It says:
> Exodus32:23 They said to me: Make us *gods*, that may go before us: for as to this Moses, who brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is befallen him.


Where the translation you used says "gods," the Hebrew word is Elohim. This is the normal word in the Old Testament for God. I'm guessing that if you check that verse again, you'll see a footnote at that point saying that. It is the exact word used in the last verse of chapter 31, just prior to this story, where it refers to the 10 Commandments having been written by the finger of Elohim. If you look it up in a concordance, you'll find hundreds, if not thousands of occurrences of this exact word all through the Old Testament, almost always referring to the one true God. The -im at the end is a plural form. But, when referring to God, it's not a normal plural, it's what's called a plural of majesty. And in case there's any ambiguity here that Aaron meant this to represent the one true God, notice that in v. 5 he calls their worship of the calf a feast to the LORD. That use of LORD with all capital letters in English Bibles indicates that it's the Hebrew proper name, YHWH, which always and exclusively refers precisely to the one true God.




> For one they don't pray to the image.


I've seen it with my own eyes.

Or are you going to revert back to that other argument that they're not praying to the stones themselves but to what they represent?

If so, this is becoming like whack-a-mole.




> 2nd is kissing a photo of your wife adultery?


No. But idolatry isn't just worshiping false gods, it's also worshiping images of the one true God. This is clear in the way it is defined in the 10 commandments.

----------


## RJB

> Where the translation you used says "gods," the Hebrew word is Elohim. This is the normal word in the Old Testament for God. I'm guessing that if you check that verse again, you'll see a footnote at that point saying that. It is the exact word used in the last verse of chapter 31, just prior to this story, where it refers to the 10 Commandments having been written by the finger of Elohim. If you look it up in a concordance, you'll find hundreds, if not thousands of occurrences of this exact word all through the Old Testament, almost always referring to the one true God. The -im at the end is a plural form. But, when referring to God, it's not a normal plural, it's what's called a plural of majesty. And in case there's any ambiguity here that Aaron meant this to represent the one true God, notice that in v. 5 he calls their worship of it a feast to the LORD. That use of LORD with all capital letters in English Bibles indicates that it's the Hebrew proper name, YHWH, which always and exclusively refers precisely to the one true God.


Thanks. You've given me something to ponder.  I'll look into this.  I was aware as I was typing the last response that God is used as plural.  It's one of the reasons we say the trinity has always existed.  It had never occurred to me that it may apply here.




> I've seen it with my own eyes.


Your eyes see into their hearts?

----------


## erowe1

> Your eyes see into their hearts?


No. But they see what they're doing outwardly.

The prohibition of idolatry in the 10 commandments doesn't make exceptions based on what's in peoples' hearts.

----------


## erowe1

I see it like this. A and B are discussing this.

A: Idolatry is the worship of graven images, either of false gods or of the true God.
B: I agree.
A: An example is when ancient Israelites worshiped statues of Baal.
B: I agree.
A: But in their hearts they didn't mean to worship the stone itself, but the Baal it represented.
B: I agree.
A: Similarly, if they worship a statue of the true God, intending their worship to be to God himself, and not to the stone that represents him, that's idolatry.
B: No, in that case, it's not wrong, because they're not worshiping the stone, but God.
A: But the Baal worshipers weren't worshiping the stone, but worshiping Baal.
B: But that's wrong because Baal isn't the true God.
A: But worshiping Baal is wrong anyway, with or without a statue.
B: I agree.
A: So then where does the prohibition of graven images come into play?

I'm not sure if all the people debating against me here believe all the same things. But in debating you all, it feels like the above conversation.

----------


## Matthew5

> Why do you believe this?


Did Jesus ever teach in the temple?

Also, you have yet to address my other point, which I will just skip to the conclusion...if you value Scripture and you trust its authenticity, then you must respect the model that the Holy Spirit used to form the Bible. Therefore, this same model, being led by the Holy Spirit, also endorsed and codified the use of icons in church and personal life. To deny this would be denying that the Holy Spirit worked at all.

----------


## erowe1

> Did Jesus ever teach in the temple?


Yes, such as when he drove out the money changers. But I don't see how that involves anything similar to praying to images.




> Also, you have yet to address my other point, which I will just skip to the conclusion...if you value Scripture and you trust its authenticity, then you must respect the model that the Holy Spirit used to form the Bible. Therefore, this same model, being led by the Holy Spirit, also endorsed and codified the use of icons in church and personal life. To deny this would be denying that the Holy Spirit worked at all.


I did address it. I think you must have missed my point. But the long and short of it is that when you keep bringing this up, you seem to assume a model of the Holy Spirit forming the Bible that I don't share. For example, apparently there was something that happened in the 4th century that you consider important. I asked if you were talking about the physical making of large books with all the books of the Bible bound in one cover, and unless I missed it, you didn't tell me what you were talking about.

The Holy Spirit inspired the writings of the Bible. At the very moment they were composed, they were inspired scripture. They weren't just ordinary books waiting around for someone to turn them into the Bible.

The Holy Spirit also worked throughout all of history, in every generation, in the propagation of these Scriptures. I don't know of a single model by which God accomplished this.

----------


## Matthew5

> Yes, such as when he drove out the money changers. But I don't see how that involves anything similar to praying to images.


No, Jesus taught in the temple, why else would they call him Rabbi? 

Luke 4:14-15:Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.

Therefore he would have venerated items, such as the Torah. 




> I did address it....


I then asked who rejected the gnostic Gospels? We know that it was indeed Councils of the Church that ultimately decided what was Scripture and what was not. This is the method God used to guide the Church in truth.

----------


## erowe1

> No, Jesus taught in the temple, why else would they call him Rabbi? 
> 
> Luke 4:14-15:Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.


I think you are talking about synagogues. That's not what the Temple was.




> Therefore he would have venerated items, such as the Torah.


Why do you believe this?




> I then asked who rejected the gnostic Gospels? We know that it was indeed Councils of the Church that ultimately decided what was Scripture and what was not. This is the method God used to guide the Church in truth.


Lots and lots of Christians rejected them. And they didn't need councils to tell them to. Take Irenaeus, for example.

Do you think that the Gnostic Gospels were somehow part of the Church's Bible for all those years until some council came along and threw them out, and then all Christians everywhere just followed what that council said?

And then there were others who did accept them. And they didn't stop accepting them just because a council said they should.

The crucial thing for me is that the Gnostic Gospels never were really part of the true Bible. They did not come from the apostles, or from associates of the apostles. They do not reflect the faith of the apostles, but a divergent form of Christianity that departed from them. This is a matter of history. It does not depend on what a council would later say about them.

----------


## Matthew5

> Are you talking about synagogues? Why do you believe this?


Yes I am, and as I've already posted, the protocol was to venerate several holy items as a teacher.





> Lots and lots of Christians rejected them. And they didn't need councils to tell them to. Take Irenaeus, for example.
> 
> Do you think that the Gnostic Gospels were somehow part of the Church's Bible for all those years until some council came along and threw them out, and then all Christians everywhere just followed what that council said?
> 
> And then there were others who did accept them. And they didn't stop accepting them just because a council said they should.


No, there was no Bible before the Councils. Indeed, there were prominent books such as the Gospels and the Epistles, but it took sometime for the Church to canonize them as Scripture. Even gnostic books contained kernel's of truth, which many drew that out of them. But it took an assembly to say what was wholly true and what was not. 

It did take some time for Christians everywhere to accept the decision on the Council. But one cannot deny that the Holy Spirit was active in this.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes I am, and as I've already posted, the protocol was to venerate several holy items as a teacher.


You have made that assertion many times. And I've asked you why you believe it each time. So far you haven't told me why.

Now I'm wondering why you resist telling me. It makes it appear that you're embarrassed by what your source is. And this does not engender confidence that your claim is true.





> No, there was no Bible before the Councils. Indeed, there were prominent books such as the Gospels and the Epistles, but it took sometime for the Church to canonize them as Scripture.


Why do you believe this?

First of all, what council are you talking about? None of the so-called ecumenical ones listed the books of the canon (except in the opinion of Roman Catholics, who did have something they called an ecumenical council that did that, but not before the 1500s).

Second of all, all you have to do is read any Christian writings from before whatever councils you're talking about, and you'll see that they did have the inspired scriptures. And they treated those inspired scriptures just as authoritatively as anyone from later centuries would. And they excluded from them other books like the gnostic gospels.

When you look into history about this question, you will not find anywhere some watershed moment before which all Christians everywhere didn't have a settled canon of scripture, and after which they did. Go ahead and check for yourself.

----------


## Matthew5

> You have made that assertion many times. And I've asked you why you believe it each time. So far you haven't told me why.
> 
> Now I'm wondering why you resist telling me.







> The Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tefillin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm.  He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue.  No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.


There would have been a riot in the synagogue if Jesus, who was already on the Pharisee's radar, would have not followed these customs of veneration before putting on His shawl and touching the Torah.






> Why do you believe this?
> 
> First of all, what council are you talking about? None of the so-called ecumenical ones listed the books of the canon (except in the opinion of Roman Catholics, who did have an ecumenical council that did that, but not before the 1500s).
> 
> Second of all, all you have to do is read any Christian writings from before whatever councils you're talking about, and you'll see that they did have the inspired scriptures. And they treated those inspired scriptures just as authoritatively as anyone from later centuries would. And they excluded from them other books like the gnostic gospels.
> 
> When you look into history about this question, you will not find anywhere some watershed moment before which all Christians everywhere didn't have a settled canon of scripture, and after which they did. Go ahead and check for yourself.


The Church was very divided on which constituted holy Scripture and it took a few Councils to finally formalize and give us the canon that we have today. That's not to say some still didn't fight over it for 100s of years.

But you're straining at gnats here and taking this debate off topic. My whole point, is that the Holy Spirit has used the Councils of the Church to settle and establish Christian doctrine. To deny one or some is to remove the power of the Holy Spirit and to deny the core tenets of our faith. Therefore, the iconography debate has already been settled 1,300 years ago. It is up to us to work on accepting this truth through prayer and humility. We can't pick and choose what we like from their work.

----------


## erowe1

Honestly, as I think about it, if I saw a Christian kiss their Bible, the way modern rabbis kiss the Torah, I wouldn't think they did anything wrong. In that case, it really would be the physical object itself that they were honoring, and it would be honor due to it as a physical object for what it really is. I am thankful for my copies of the Bible. I treasure them as what they are in and of themselves, being collections of pieces of paper with ink on them arranged in such a way that I can read God's Word from them. I keep some of them in special cases that I don't use for other books. I own dozens of Bibles and keep buying more. I annotate them. I give them away to friends and strangers. I memorize passages from them. I sing songs about them. I hold them up in the air, and declare to others, "Here stand I. I can do no other." Not all Christians have had these treasures. It would be like coming out of a desert to find a cool glass of water and kissing it. It wouldn't be an image of any kind. Nor would it be mistaken as one. It is not a relic, or a host of the presence of God, who is somehow miraculously either equal to or in, with, and under the physical molecules of the Bible, nor a representation of something other than what it really is. It is physical matter of an ordinary kind. And this matter is arranged into a physical tool of extraordinary value.

You can see that what I'm describing is quite different than someone standing before carved stones, designed as a work of art to represent Jesus, and praying to them as if to Jesus himself, believing in their own hearts that it is Jesus himself to whom they pray.

I still want to know what the evidence was for rabbis kissing the Torah in the time of Jesus. But, even if Jesus did that, I don't think there could have been any possibility of anyone construing that as in any way similar to using an image to represent God in your worship of him.

----------


## Matthew5

> Honestly, as I think about it, if I saw a Christian kiss their Bible, the way modern rabbis kiss the Torah, I wouldn't think they did anything wrong. In that case, it really would be the physical object itself that they were honoring, and it would be honor due to it as a physical object for what it really is. I am thankful for my copies of the Bible. I treasure them as what they are in and of themselves, being collections of pieces of paper with ink on them arranged in such a way that I can read God's word from them. I keep some of them in special cases that I don't use for other books. I own dozens of Bibles and keep buying more. I annotate them. I give them away to friends and strangers. I memorize passages from them. I sing songs about them. I hold them up in the air, and declare to others, "Here stand I. I can do no other." Not all Christians have had these treasures. It would be like coming out of a desert to find a cool glass of water and kissing it. It wouldn't be an image of any kind. Nor would it be mistaken as one.


So replace that with an image of Christ, who is your God and Savior...yet that's not ok?




> I still want to know what the evidence was for rabbis kissing the Torah in the time of Jesus. But, even if Jesus did that, I don't think there could have been any possibility of anyone construing that as in any way similar to using an image to represent God in your worship of him.


Because its a custom still carried on today, seriously, go youtube it. And just as you said you give honor to an object, so did Jesus. Because of the prototype the Scriptures represent...

----------


## TER

Good morning erowe!  I hope you rested well.  I see you are still at it today.  I guess you are trying to save us from idolatry?  But I already tell you that I worship God alone.  Do you think I practice idolatry even as I tell you that I don't? 




> Because Jesus and the apostles didn't.


Can you please explain what you mean?  Are you telling us that Jesus and the Apostles did not believe  1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit or Judith to be inspired writings?  How do you know this exactly?

----------


## erowe1

> So replace that with an image of Christ, who is your God and Savior...yet that's not ok?


Definitely not. Because, exactly as you said, he is God, and I would be worshiping him as such through that image.




> Because its a custom still carried on today, seriously, go youtube it.


I don't dispute that it goes on today. The question is, did it go on in Jesus's day? Do you have any reason to believe that it did?

Where did you get the idea? I hope you based it on something more relevant than Youtube videos of something from 2000 years after the time of Jesus. I kind of doubt that you did. And your resistance to saying where you got the idea is becoming agonizingly obvious. I noticed that TER did the exact same thing when I asked him about the exact same claim.




> And just as you said you give honor to an object, so did Jesus. Because of the prototype the Scriptures represent...


It's problematic how many different things this thread is covering, and some of you seem to be trying to mix them together.

We have the topics of prayers to the dead, prayers to the dead using images of them, the simple use of images in churches for any purpose at all, prayers to God using images of God, and veneration of physical objects as the things they are and not as images of anything.

I have tried to be clear about the things I am against and the things I am not against.

I am not against the use of images in general. I am not against venerating objects or other people as the things they are in and of themselves. I am against praying to dead people, which has been taken up in a different thread. And I am against praying to, or otherwise worshiping, God through an image that ostensibly represents him. This last point is precisely what idolatry is.

Some of you may see all of these as variations of the same thing. But I don't.

----------


## Matthew5

> It's problematic how many different things this thread is covering, and some of you seem to be trying to mix them together...


Because we're attempting to show you the cohesiveness of Christian doctrine.

Look, the simple fact is, there's a mountain of evidence against the iconoclast. To pretend I'm going to get you to see that in some random internet forum when you reject historical Christianity and the evidence it provided (of which was successful in defeating iconoclasts) is perhaps naive of me. I can only point you to the truth, which has established the core tenets of your belief system (Christology, Scripture, etc.) If you trust it enough for that, you must trust it for everything.

I've already given you excellent resources to start your journey. I pray that you will see the truth that has been the foundation of our faith for 2,000 years.

----------


## erowe1

> Good morning erowe!  I hope you rested well.  I see you are still at it today.  I guess you are trying to save us from idolatry?  But I already tell you that I worship God alone.  Do you think I practice idolatry even as I tell you that I don't? 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain what you mean?  Are you telling us that Jesus and the Apostles did not believe  1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit or Judith to be inspired writings?  How do you know this exactly?


I don't know if for certainty. But I believe it to be the case based on the evidence available. The main reason is that those books were not regarded as belonging to the trifold division of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, that was considered to be the delimitation of inspired scripture by the Pharisees of Palestine in the time of Jesus. Their scriptures were the ones he used in his ministry in synagogues.

Admittedly, we don't have an exact list of these books by name from before the time of the New Testament. But we do have records of rabbis debating about them from only a few decades later. And the ones those rabbis accepted are the same ones that belong to the Hebrew Bible in use today. We also have Josephus saying that there were 22 books of the Bible, which, using the way the books were numbered by the rabbis, would be either the exact same books, of a very similar list with possible slight differences. And we have a statement in 4 Ezra about 24 books, which seems to be essentially the same list, again, with the possibility of slight differences. Finally, we have all the scriptural quotations made by Jesus and the apostles. We do not have quotes from every single book of the Hebrew Bible from them. But we have almost every book. And I think it's significant that we have zero quotations from any of the books belonging to any of the additions to the Hebrew Bible that are made by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopic Christians, or Coptic Christians, or any of the various later editions of the so-called Septuagint.

I think when we look at this question we can put the books into categories of confidence.

1) We can say with 100% certainty that the Bible of Jesus and his apostles included the 5 books of the Pentateuch, the major and minor prophets, all the historical books of the Hebrew Bible (aside from Esther), Job, Psalms, and Proverbs.

2) We can adduce fairly strong arguments that it also included Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.

3) Then there are some more outliers, of books that were composed later than any of those that were popular among Judaism, especially Greek speaking Judaism outside of Palestine, but that also were used by some Jews in Palestine. We have the 4 books of the Maccabees, with the first two being more important than the third or fourth. We have Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the 151st Psalm.

4) Then we have some more that deserve mention as well, like 4 Ezra, Jubilees, the Odes of Solomon, and the books that are today grouped together as one with the name of 1 Enoch.

The books that have always been the most important for Christianity are those in the first category. They continue to be the most important, and they are the ones I still consider the most important.

Among the remaining categories, I personally have full confidence in the second one being part of Jesus's Bible for the reasons I stated above.

I don't think the same about the others. But I don't feel any need to assert that with 100% confidence either. If Jesus or the apostles ever did read them or quote them as inspired scripture, then they were apparently of lesser importance. And, I still see them as important historical works that cover a period leading up to the time of Christ that the Hebrew Bible does not.

TER, I have seen you discount something from Ecclesiastes as reflecting the wisdom of Solomon that was great in his day, but that you still did not regard as a true statement about the departed souls of the dead. Yet you believe that book to be a part of the Bible. I personally see Ecclesiastes as more than just Solomon's own wise words (as wise as he was). However, the way you seem to view Ecclesiastes is the same way I view Sirach.

What is important to me is that I must privilege the faith of the apostles over that of later Christians. It doesn't matter if someone centuries after Christ listed a canon that included this or that book, if it was not among those that any of the apostles ever considered inspired scripture by the time the last of them died.

----------


## erowe1

> Look, the simple fact is, there's a mountain of evidence against the iconoclast.


I haven't said anything in defense of iconoclasts. For the record, I do not advocate destroying works of art, even those that are used in religious worship that I understand to be wrong.

I will say, however, that when we have gotten into questions in this thread about what was the case in the first three centuries of Christianity, you and your cohorts have not presented a mountain of evidence. In fact, what scraps of evidence you've tried to adduce turned out to be completely wrong. And often, when I have asked for evidence, I haven't gotten any.

----------


## erowe1

> Do you think I practice idolatry even as I tell you that I don't?


No. You have said clearly that you don't. I have already stated in this thread clearly and explicitly that I make no claim that you do.

I don't know you, and I haven't witnessed what you do in your own worship. I have seen others praying to carved stones depicting Jesus. But I have made no claims about anyone here that they do that. If you or anyone else does, it makes no difference to anything I've said in this thread.

The confusing thing is that after agreeing with me, you sometimes turn around and seem to go back to disagreeing with me, and accepting the pro-idolatry views of people like John of Damascus.

----------


## TER

Erowe, basically you are saying that you have deduced in your mind which books are canonical, what practices are acceptable, and what traditions are apostolic based on the evidence you have looked at.

 I don't put so much trust on my mind alone to figure this out.  I admit I am not so confident as you to make such sweeping accusations as saying 'that is not what the apostles taught' etc.  Instead, I look towards the Church which is the bulwark of the faith and truth.  I have chosen to follow what the Church has taught, knowing that my life, my knowledge, and my experiences do not stand up to the life, the knowledge and the experiences of the 2000 year old apostolic Church.

So you don't wish to use icons in your worship.  Fine, don't, but don't tell me that I am an idolator because I kiss an icon whose image has Christ upon it or pray before an icon of Christ instead of just imagining in my head He is before me.  

So you don't pray for your dead relatives.  Fine, don't, but don't tell me that it was not the practice or the teachings of the Church when you have no evidence to make this claim and base it upon your own judgment even when every Church which can trace itself back to the Apostles via succession do indeed pray for the dead.  Fine, don't pray for their souls.  

Here we have people interested in joining the ancient Church whose traditions and teachings do not sway upon the opinion of one individual and do not bend to the whims of the world, whose history goes back to the early days in Jerusalem and whose churches stand in the holy places of the early Church, and you sow into them thoughts that using icons in worship is idolatry.   The iconoclasts were defeated in the 8th century, and the treatise which did so you refuse to read, though you still believe in your mind you are correct in your assertions.  And then you judge a great Saint as being an idolator.  But I agree with this saint! then you must believe me too to be an idolator.  

Believe what you will and best of luck!  I hope the Holy Spirit fills you with peace, love, and understanding.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Interesting debate, as usual.

Could God be preparing us for a time when we have no written or oral proof of His existence, relying only on the faith His gives us, relying only on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?   Think of the many suffering souls today, who do not have the vast resources we have to examine these issues.

I know I can live and worship Christ without icons, without a Bible, without a rosary, without church, without people without communion.  It would be extreme suffering. I think He is preparing some of us for this.

----------


## TER

> Interesting debate, as usual.
> 
> Could God be preparing us for a time when we have no written or oral proof of His existence, relying only on the faith His gives us, relying only on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?   Think of the many suffering souls today, who do not have the vast resources we have to examine these issues.
> 
> I know I can live and worship Christ without icons, without a Bible, without a rosary, without church, without people without communion.  It would be extreme suffering. I think He is preparing some of us for this.


 we all have been put on a path by God.  And while our worship may often be alone with just ourself and God, in a dark closet, and with no thoughts other then to be before His presence, love must be a communion, for love is never of itself or by itself.  This is part of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, of a communion of love.  Thus our love is to God and also our neighbor, for these are the two great commandments and the filling of the law of love.   (this doesn't exactly pertain to your statement above Louise, but it popped in my head when I read your post.) 

The acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the reason and meaning for our lives, and acquiring this spirit by God's grace does not rest solely on our mind's efforts, but in the efforts of our hearts and the works of love we do, how we love God and love our neighbors.

----------


## Matthew5

> I haven't said anything in defense of iconoclasts. For the record, I do not advocate destroying works of art, even those that are used in religious worship that I understand to be wrong.
> 
> I will say, however, that when we have gotten into questions in this thread about what was the case in the first three centuries of Christianity, you and your cohorts have not presented a mountain of evidence. In fact, what scraps of evidence you've tried to adduce turned out to be completely wrong. And often, when I have asked for evidence, I haven't gotten any.


I am referring to the extended definition of iconoclast, those who seek to destroy established dogma.

There's entire books written on the history, it's not really my interest to rehash it. We've pointed you to some good starting points, namely St. John of Damascus.

Here's some more: Father Deacon          John Whiteford's FAQ on iconography http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_icons.aspx And here's tons more info:




> Iconography began on the day our Lord Jesus Christ pressed a cloth to His face and imprinted His divine-human image thereon. According to tradition, Luke the Evangelist painted the image of the Mother of God; and, also according to tradition, there still exist today many Icons which were painted by him. An artist, he painted not only the first Icons of the Mother of God, but also those of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul and, possibly, others which have not come down to us. 
> 
> Thus did Iconography begin. Then it came to a halt for a time. Christianity was cruelly persecuted: all that was reminiscent of Christ was destroyed and subjected to ridicule. Thus, during the course of the persecutions, Iconography did not develop, but Christians attempted to express in symbols what they wished to convey.


So as we've pointed out, it has Old Testament establishment, Jesus Himself used an icon for healing, St. Luke was an iconographer, and the tradition of religious imagery and their veneration was used as early as the third century. Again, this has been covered in depth by the iconodules of the first millennium.

----------


## Matthew5

> Interesting debate, as usual.
> 
> Could God be preparing us for a time when we have no written or oral proof of His existence, relying only on the faith His gives us, relying only on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?   Think of the many suffering souls today, who do not have the vast resources we have to examine these issues.
> 
> I know I can live and worship Christ without icons, without a Bible, without a rosary, without church, without people without communion.  It would be extreme suffering. I think He is preparing some of us for this.


Indeed, as we have seen persecution of the church many times, in first and second century, the rise of Islam, and even recently in Russia. Christians have been deprived of temples, images, books, and much more and still have survived. Even if we have to carve out a cross on a stone wall with our finger nails, we will do so.

----------


## TER

> I am referring to the extended definition of iconoclast, those who seek to destroy established dogma.
> 
> There's entire books written on the history, it's not really my interest to rehash it. We've pointed you to some good starting points, namely St. John of Damascus.
> 
> Here's some more: Father Deacon          John Whiteford's FAQ on iconography http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx
> 
> http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_icons.aspx And here's tons more info:
> 
> 
> ...


For skeptics, Matthew5, this does not constitute enough evidence.  They require more evidence as tradition alone is not enough to convince them.  As a faithful Orthodox like yourself, who believes the Holy Eucharist is was Christ said it was, we can humbly accept what the Church has revealed to be truth, because we believe in the Holy Spirit to be present in the Church (especially in regards to Holy Councils which has defended the faithful from the heresies of the day, such as iconoclasm.). Thus, knowing the great gifts God has bestowed upon the Church and knowing that our own fallible minds often sin and lead us astray, we are careful to say 'I think' or 'in my opinion', especially when such thoughts or opinions go against what the Church and the countless witnesses and saints have defended down the centuries.  As we join into Christ through our humility, likewise we join the Church He established.

----------


## Matthew5

> I don't put so much trust on my mind alone to figure this out....


Wonderfully stated. Rationalism is the antithesis of humility and faith. It seeks to exalt one's self over the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Matthew5

> For skeptics, Matthew5, this does not constitute enough evidence...


Indeed, my argument is that when we treat the Church as a theological buffet, we are getting an incomplete faith. If we choose rationalism as our god, we must use this blunt tool on everything, including our Christology. What we will find is a watered-down version that way, as we cannot accept things by faith. No, the Holy Spirit has established these pillars of truth and each is necessary for the foundation of faith.

----------


## erowe1

> There's entire books written on the history, it's not really my interest to rehash it.


You're not merely failing to rehash all those books. You're ignoring them entirely and putting a revisionist history in their place without any evidence.

----------


## erowe1

> So as we've pointed out, it has Old Testament establishment, Jesus Himself used an icon for healing, St. Luke was an iconographer, and the tradition of religious imagery and their veneration was used as early as the third century. Again, this has been covered in depth by the iconodules of the first millennium.


You can't tell me that you actually have researched the history of this and believe that these things are true.

All those books you referred to, take a look at them. None of them will support these claims.

----------


## erowe1

> Indeed, my argument is that when we treat the Church as a theological buffet


There's no other alternative. The Church over its history has been made up of millions and millions of individuals, no two of whom agree on everything. To agree with some is to disagree with others. These millions of varying opinions can't all be the authoritative source of divinely revealed Truth.

The standard I turn to to resolve these differences is the faith once for all delivered to the saints by the apostles whom Jesus appointed for the founding of his Church.

Also, despite all these doctrinal differences, there is a hub at the center of all true Christian teaching. Every other truth of the apostolic faith revolves around this hub. It is the Gospel. Sadly, I think when some denominations give their flock lists of hundreds of doctrines that must be believed, and that bring anathema if they are denied, they dilute that one small set of doctrines that really does deserve that pride of place. Oftentimes, it's not just that they go beyond the Bible for sources of truth, it's that the use extrabiblical sources to identify things that they elevate to essentials of the faith. Things that the apostles never thought deserved the slightest mention, become litmus tests for them to see who's really part of a denomination that they consider to be the one true Church. When I talk to some people from some of these denominations, even those who are well-versed in their denomination's teachings, some of them can't even tell me what the Gospel itself is.

----------


## TER

Whose god is as great as our God, the maker of wonders?  Whose Holy Spirit fills creation and gives life to creation?  Who has sanctified a church and established a faith not merely for a past time or for the present time, but for the future and all time?  The Holy Spirit of God is not weak though we fallible men are.  And by the stones from the ground He can create life and faithful servants.  And indeed he did, raising up saints like St. John Damascus who some so quickly condemn.  The amount of saints they must make as fools or in damnable heresy in order for justify there beliefs.  They seek to lessen the Holy Spirit to put their mind above the   mind of those who held fast to the precepts and teachings that were passed down to them.  I simply don't consider myself so smart or so full of the Spirit of God to put myself over the Church which He first sanctified.

----------


## Matthew5

> You're not merely failing to rehash all those books. You're ignoring them entirely and putting a revisionist history in their place without any evidence. You can't tell me that you actually have researched the history of this and believe that these things are true. All those books you referred to, take a look at them. None of them will support these claims.


I could honestly say the same of you, erowe. For example, you ignore how the Bible was put together. But again, that's a side debate.

I have not done seminary level research on it yet, but what I do know is the results in my own life, which are too personal to share right now. But great things have happened and God has been glorified...and it does involve iconography. The Holy Spirit would not be present if it were idolatry.




> There's no other alternative...


Ah! But there is! The Lord sent the Holy Spirit to guide those that have been entrusted as guardians of the faith, such as the Apostles. It is in this Church that the purity of the faith is protected against the opinions of man.

The Gospel is at the center of all that we do and we use the Gospel to confirm our doctrine. For example, iconography is only possible through the Incarnation of Christ.

----------


## erowe1

> I could honestly say the same of you, erowe. For example, you ignore how the Bible was put together.


If you really believe that, show me your evidence.

You said that the canon was determined by church councils. Well, which ones? When you look into this, you will find that this claim is completely false. And there's nothing revisionist about what I said on that topic.




> great things have happened and God has been glorified...and it does involve iconography. The Holy Spirit would not be present if it were idolatry.


Once again, in case I haven't said it enough times. I do not claim that iconography=idolatry.

It is only idolatry if the icons are worshiped, such as I sometimes see.




> Ah! But there is! The Lord sent the Holy Spirit to guide those that have been entrusted as guardians of the faith, such as the Apostles. It is in this Church that the purity of the faith is protected against the opinions of man.


But among all the individuals to whom he gave his Spirit, he did not anoint any as the guarantors of the whole truth. He did not replace the apostles after their deaths with a new generation of apostles. The apostles God gave the Church are still the very same ones he gave the Church of that first generation. It is still the case that as you look out at all the millions of these believers to whom God has kept this promise, you find no two believing the exact same things.




> The Gospel is at the center of all that we do and we use the Gospel to confirm our doctrine. For example, iconography is only possible through the Incarnation of Christ.


The problem I was referring to is when people who believe your second sentence take the additional step that the apostles themselves never took, and make it into an essential tenet of your first sentence. And then they add to that tenet hundreds more. And in the end, through all those doctrines that they've accrued throughout centuries of innovation after innovation, it's hard to see just what the Gospel is amidst them all.

----------


## TER

The saints did not ignore the Gospel.  They lived it in one mind and one spirit and in the breaking of bread and never was there a time that a Sunday went by since the day of Pentecost without those saints communing in such a way, in one mind and spirit.

----------


## Matthew5

> If you really believe that, show me your evidence.
> 
> You said that the canon was determined by church councils. Well, which ones? When you look into this, you will find that this claim is completely false. And there's nothing revisionist about what I said on that topic.


Not false.




> The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[4] on 28 August *397* issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, _"Genesis,  Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges,  Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic  Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah,  Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra,[5]  2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1  book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter  of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and  one book of the Apocalypse of John.[6]"_







> But among all the individuals to whom he gave his Spirit, he did not anoint any as the guarantors of truth. It is still the case that as you look out at all the millions of these believers to whom God has kept this promise, you find no two believing the exact same things.
> 
> The problem I was referring to is when people who believe your second sentence take the additional step that the apostles themselves never took, and make it into an essential tenet of your first sentence. And then they add to that tenet hundreds more. And in the end, through all those doctrines that they've accrued throughout centuries of innovation after innovation, it's hard to see just what the Gospel is amidst them all.


The Epistles are full of reminders that the Church (as governed by Bishops of Apostolic succession) were to defend against heresy and unsound doctrine.

Are icons necessary for salvation? No.

Are they helpful and vital to your Christian journey? Yes.

Can calling them a sin bring in to question Christology? Yes.

The added doctrines and dogmas aren't mere trinkets that humans have decided to add. They are Holy Tradition that has been worked out and vetted using the Scriptures, the instructions of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Are things added as requirements for salvation? No.

----------


## erowe1

> The saints did not ignore the Gospel.  They lived it in one mind and one spirit and in the breaking of bread and never was there a time that a Sunday went by since the day of Pentecost without those saints communing in such a way, in one mind and spirit.


I agree. And they did that all without later so-called ecumenical councils, or patriarchates, or monarchical bishops, or (after the death of the apostles) any other structural hierarchy uniting them all into one visible organization. Their unity was a spiritual one. And all believers in Jesus of all ages, regardless of any denomination their local assembly of believers belongs to, or even if it belongs to no denomination at all, share that union of one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, each and every one of them belonging to the one unified Church universal. There does not exist within this one global Body of Christ any person or group of people who have the authority to be gatekeepers to genuine participation in true Christian baptism, observance of the Lord's supper, or any other means of God's grace.

----------


## erowe1

> Not false.


The Council of Carthage was only a local council. It only pertained to that limited group of assemblies over which those bishops held sway. Nobody's Bible today is a result of what they did.

Nor did any Christians before their day lack a canon. We have other older canon lists that are just as authoritative as that one.

Note, by the way, that if you are either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or any belong to any other major denomination today, your canon is not the same one they had at that council either. So if you ask me why I don't base my Bible on them, I ask you the same question.

----------


## Matthew5

> The Council of Carthage was only a local council. It only pertained to that limited group of assemblies over which those bishops held sway. Nobody's Bible today is a result of what they did.
> 
> Nor did any Christians before their day lack a canon. We have other older canon lists that are just as authoritative as that one.
> 
> Note, by the way, that if you are either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or any belong to any other major denomination today, your canon is not the same one they had at that council either. So if you ask me why I don't base my Bible on them, I ask you the same question.


You asked for an example and I gave you one!  And yes, that is close to an EO Bible. I didn't say that was a definitive work, but part of the process. 

But this is a pointless debate with you since refuse to accept the modus operandi of historical Christianity and instead, color it with your own bias.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  And it became a stumbling block as people worshiped it.
> 
> _2 Kings 18:4
> 
> 4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).[a]_





> Yes, it should never have been worshipped.  If they had understood the true use of this icon, they would have still have found benefit from it.


Maybe not.  But it did.  Also note the command in Exodus is "Thou shalt not make *unto thee* any graven image."  God commissioned the ark.  God commissioned the angels on the ark.  God commissioned the snake on the staff.  God didn't commission a statute of St. Jude for me to bury in my back yard.  It seems to me that whenever objects are made and then in the least bit venerated there is the temptation for idolatry.  I don't know of any examples of any Hebrews being told to make any image to keep in his own home as opposed to the temple.  Also, God told David specifically that He gave David multiple wives.  And yet those multiple wives arguably became a stumbling block for David an definitely became a stumbling block for Solomon.  If you can have a statue of an angel or a saint in your home or your church and never lose sight of the fact that it is just a statue, if you never think that this having that particular statue somehow brings you blessings or grace or whatever, then I don't see how it's a problem.  But if it ever becomes a focus of worship, even a "Please St. Jude, tell God to help me with this problem" focus of worship, to me that's flirting with the 2nd commandment.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I agree. And they did that all without later so-called ecumenical councils, or patriarchates, or monarchical bishops, or (after the death of the apostles) any other structural hierarchy uniting them all into one visible organization. Their unity was a spiritual one. And all believers in Jesus of all ages, regardless of any denomination their local assembly of believers belongs to, or even if it belongs to no denomination at all, share that union of one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, each and every one of them belonging to the one unified Church universal. There does not exist within this one global Body of Christ any person or group of people who have the authority to be gatekeepers to genuine participation in true Christian baptism, observance of the Lord's supper, or any other means of God's grace.


No more rep available for you, erowe.  So well said, I am clapping.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> we all have been put on a path by God.  And while our worship may often be alone with just ourself and God, in a dark closet, and with no thoughts other then to be before His presence, love must be a communion, for love is never of itself or by itself.  This is part of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, of a communion of love.  Thus our love is to God and also our neighbor, for these are the two great commandments and the filling of the law of love.   (this doesn't exactly pertain to your statement above Louise, but it popped in my head when I read your post.) 
> 
> The acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the reason and meaning for our lives, and acquiring this spirit by God's grace does not rest solely on our mind's efforts, but in the efforts of our hearts and the works of love we do, how we love God and love our neighbors.


Yes, we can love God and our neighbor only because He first loved and chose us.  Thanks be to God.

----------


## TER

> I agree. And they did that all without later so-called ecumenical councils, or patriarchates, or monarchical bishops, or (after the death of the apostles) any other structural hierarchy uniting them all into one visible organization. Their unity was a spiritual one. And all believers in Jesus of all ages, regardless of any denomination their local assembly of believers belongs to, or even if it belongs to no denomination at all, share that union of one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, each and every one of them belonging to the one unified Church universal. There does not exist within this one global Body of Christ any person or group of people who have the authority to be gatekeepers to genuine participation in true Christian baptism, observance of the Lord's supper, or any other means of God's grace.


But you are mistaken dear erowe.  There was indeed one Church which shared in one mind and spirit and breaking of the bread.  Notice that in one mind, they professed the faith of the apostles, in one spirit they worshiped God and in one bread they did break bread and commune with God and through God all of creation.  The visible manifestations of their unity in faith and spirit was in the very Holy Eucharist.  The Body and Blood of Christ was their visible demonstration of likeness in the faith.  Many modern Christians poo poo the sacraments and minimize the grace of God in these mysteries, as mere symbols.  They are not mere symbols, but real transformative power in the material world by the divine, for as such a reason as this did Christ say He come in order to bring into the world fully the Holy Spirit in the appointed time.

And in One Cup did the Apostles drink from, in one mind and one spirit, and they sealed their communion in these things by the Body and Blood of Christ.  

And those who preached a foreign gospel or perverted the faith and added things or took away things and caused the union of mind and spirit to be broken, so also did they outwardly break communion in the sharing of the Body and Blood of Christ.  Christ initiated the Holy Eucharist not only as a means to heal us and restore us and strengthen us but to also unite us and protect us from the wiles of those who spread false doctrines and false teachings.

Their unity, therefore, erowe, was not merely spiritual, but physical, for we are not gnostics to disregard the flesh and blood God has given us, but as living temples commune in wholeness and fullness, our minds, spirits and bodies, into a unity of faith. This is what St. Paul preached.  And this is what He taught to the bishops he ordained, warning them too to cast away from them those who seek to alter the teachings handed down to them and disrupt the unity of the faith and the purity of the offering in the worship of God.

You mention bishops and patriarchates and such in such a disparaging way, but it was them who gave their lives to defend the teachings and keep pure the faith.  And as far as there were Christians, did the Apostles appoint bishops to oversee the people and ensure that the faith was preserved and the teachings held fast AND the offering of the Eucharist kept undefiled.

In order for you to make your opinions true, you must ignore/insult/belittle/cast away the foundational sacramental unity and structure of the Church which revolves around the the Lord Himself, not only in spirit, and in mind, but in Body and Blood, indeed, the very manifestations of His incarnation and His Presence back then and every day since then.  This succession never went away.  It resides in the Orthodox Church and with the same Cup do the faithful partake of the same Body and Blood as was did then.  But when we disregard such things, or belittle these things, we mock the saints, betray the martyrs, and put limits on the Holy Spirit.  All this so that we can deny that God established a real Church and in effect put ourselves above it and make our minds to be the authority and gatekeepers of the faith.

----------


## TER

I wish to stress, so as not to offend some who might read my post above, that because Christ indeed establish One Church to be the defender of the faith and the bulwark of the truth does NOT mean that we cannot approach Christ and find God's mercy and love while not in sacramental communion with that Church, for God loves all His children and nothing is impossible with God.  Nevertheless, the fullness of the faith and the apostolic teachings of the faith God did put into one sacramental Church, not for the exclusion of men, but to protect the faith from the cacophony of opinions and the weaknesses of men.  Not perfectly (as it is a Church composed of imperfect men) but towards perfection (as it is guided and sanctified by the Holy Spirit).

----------


## erowe1

> You asked for an example and I gave you one!  And yes, that is close to an EO Bible. I didn't say that was a definitive work, but part of the process.


No I didn't ask for an example. You said that the Bible was "put together" by church councils. I asked you for evidence of that. Your claim that it was is false. And what you provided is not evidence of it, for the reasons I listed. That council didn't do anything different than any other Christian did all through church history. Nothing happened in the 4th century, either in Carthage or anywhere else, where before it happened there was no Bible and after it there was. There is no moment in time in any century where the question of the canon was finally settled. There is only one crucial moment for the "putting together" of the Bible, and that's when each of its books were written. From that time on, all of us have been in the same position those bishops at Carthage were in of having to deal with the books we have received and sort them out. There's not some group that did that for us. If you doubt that, then check history, and you will see. Of course Carhtage's list is close to yours. It's close to mine. It's close to Origen's. It's close to the apostle Paul's. But it didn't do anything different than they did. It didn't "put together" the Bible for the Church. Neither did anyone else.

And, by the way, calling Carthage an example of a 4th century council that "put together" the Bible implies that there were others that did the same thing it did. But if you look for them, you won't find any. You will, however, find individuals who long before Carthage already had lists of books of the Bible. They all differed a little bit. And they still all differ a little bit today. But they all also have the same core books, and they all still do today. No church council made this to be so.

----------


## erowe1

> But you are mistaken dear erowe.  There was indeed one Church which shared in one mind and spirit and breaking of the bread.


That's exactly what I said.




> You mention bishops and patriarchates and such in such a disparaging way,


I see nothing disparaging in what I said. But the unity of the Church existed before patriarchates and monarchical bishops did.

When Christianity spread throughout the world, the churches that arose without having been founded by apostles or by bishops ordained in a line of apostolic succession were no less a part of this One Church, than the churches that had those things, as long as their faith was the same as that of the apostles.

----------


## TER

Again you ignore the central role of the Holy Eucharist in the unity of the faith as I described above.

----------


## erowe1

> Again you ignore the central role of the Holy Eucharist in the unity of the faith as I described above.


I don't deny a role of the Lord's supper in the unity of the faith. I observe it. It has been a unifying feature of all true Christians of the one true Church throughout history.

I do reject some of the things you said about it though, especially the ones that aren't true.

The first place we encounter a Christian bishop trying to use his authority to define the boundaries of the true Church, to make it include his allies and exclude his opponents, is Ignatius of Antioch. He is the earliest source we have for the idea that a bishop or someone a bishop delegated needed to be involved in order for an observance of the Lord's supper to be authentic, and that by excluding people from their authentic observances of it, they could exclude them from the Church universal, and from means of grace.

This teaching went against that of the apostles. The apostles welcomed the spread of the Gospel and of the one true Church to places they had not yet reached with their own preaching. The idea that someone could ever say that someone else was not part of the Church because they didn't participate in a eucharist that was overseen by someone from some approved group, and that the benefits of the very cross itself could be denied people by such a criteria goes against the Gospel itself.

This is a good example of why it's so important to cling to the faith that has been passed down to us from the apostles, and not adulterate it with later innovations.

If somebody, whether Gnostic or not, was not a part of the Church, it's not because someone else excluded them from a eucharist. It's because they were not believers in Jesus.

----------


## TER

> No I didn't ask for an example. You said that the Bible was "put together" by church councils. I asked you for evidence of that. Your claim that it was is false. And what you provided is not evidence of it, for the reasons I listed. That council didn't do anything different than any other Christian did all through church history. Nothing happened in the 4th century, either in Carthage or anywhere else, where before it happened there was no Bible and after it there was. There is no moment in time in any century where the question of the canon was finally settled. There is only one crucial moment for the "putting together" of the Bible, and that's when each of its books were written. From that time on, all of us have been in the same position those bishops at Carthage were in of having to deal with the books we have received and sort them out. There's not some group that did that for us. If you doubt that, then check history, and you will see. Of course Carhtage's list is close to yours. It's close to mine. It's close to Origen's. It's close to the apostle Paul's. But it didn't do anything different than they did. It didn't "put together" the Bible for the Church. Neither did anyone else.
> 
> And, by the way, calling Carthage an example of a 4th century council that "put together" the Bible implies that there were others that did the same thing it did. But if you look for them, you won't find any. You will, however, find individuals who long before Carthage already had lists of books of the Bible. They all differed a little bit. And they still all differ a little bit today. But they all also have the same core books, and they all still do today. No church council made this to be so.


Precisely because there were other writings which were passed down as being apostolic did these councils form.  They formed in order to counter false claims that had sprung up and to counterattack those who were pushing different doctrines and teachings.  

You say, "That council didn't do anything different than any other Christian did all through church history."  The reason a council was formed to begin with was because people (like yourself) were deciding based on their own experiences and knowledge what writings were inspired or not.  This led to confusion because of the many false gospels which had been written.  To counter this, the churches sent their bishops in order to deliberate under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (just as was done in the first council in Jerusalem as described in Acts) and proclaim the catholic and universal faith.  This was done to protect the flock from the heresies which were taking root even in those days and from those forces which brought in discord and innovative doctrines.  And in such council the truths were proclaimed, not merely by the work of men but by the Holy Spirit working in them.  And when the truths were proclaimed, together, again, in one mind, and in one spirit, they would share in the Holy Eucharist, sealing their unity of faith and passing down again the orthodox faith, as it was done in the early days of Jerusalem and 2000 years later, not only in Jerusalem still, but across the entire world wherever the Church exists.

----------


## TER

> I don't deny a role of the Lord's supper in the unity of the faith. I observe it. It has been a unifying feature of all true Christians of the one true Church throughout history.
> 
> I do reject some of the things you said about it though, especially the ones that aren't true.
> 
> The first place we encounter a Christian bishop trying to use his authority to define the boundaries of the true Church, to make it include his allies and exclude his opponents, is Ignatius of Antioch. He is the earliest source we have for the idea that a bishop or someone a bishop delegated needed to be involved in order for an observance of the Lord's supper to be authentic, and that by excluding people from their authentic observances of it, they could exclude them from the Church universal, and from means of grace.
> 
> This teaching went against that of the apostles. The apostles welcomed the spread of the Gospel and of the one true Church to places they had not yet reached with their own preaching. The idea that someone could ever say that someone else was not part of the Church because they didn't participate in a eucharist that was overseen by someone from some approved group, and that the benefits of the very cross itself could be denied people by such a criteria goes against the Gospel itself.
> 
> This is a good example of why it's so important to cling to the faith that has been passed down to us from the apostles, and not adulterate it with later innovations.
> ...


Your last statement completely goes against the teachings of the Church Fathers.  Many believed in Jesus but taught false doctrines and needed to be excommunicated in order to keep pure the offering and protect the faithful entrusted by God.  True, the gnostics exluded themselves because of their false teachings, but the fruit of this and the outward sign of this was in their excommunication of the Holy Eucharist by the bishops entrusted by the faithful of the Church.  Just as St. Paul would withhold the Holy Gifts to those who taught heresies, likewise did the bishops he ordained do the same as did all bishops since those days, including St. Ignatius who was a student of St. John the Theologian and Apostle.

And yet you say that the first place we encounter a Christian bishop doing this is St. Ignatius of Antioch who was taught by St. John, as if this is too far out of the Day of Pentecost to qualify as any standard practice.  Circa 50-100 is not good enough as proof?  Being once or only twice removed from the Apostles and being a martyr for the faith, and somehow you have a better understanding of the faith once handed down then he did?  

You dont believe the Holy Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Christ (from what I remember you saying).  But the early Church did, or do you consider this too an innovation?  

You call these things innovations and then rely on your own innovations.  It is a circle round and round, with you pointing to having the true faith of the apostles yet your church does not worship as the early Church did nor believe as the early Church believed.   My proof is what the Church has handed down in fidelity to what was passed down to them.  Your proof is in picking and choosing what things you agree with (whether in Scripture or in the history and life of the Christian Church), and then disregarding the others, mocking the saints, betraying the martyrs, and belittling the Holy Spirit Who has confirmed and maintained the faith even as people as yourself wished to create a new faith.

----------


## Matthew5

> The first place we encounter a Christian bishop trying to use his authority to define the boundaries of the true Church...


St. Paul would beg to differ...




> 2 Timothy 4 I charge _you_ therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:  2 Preach the word! Be ready in season _and_ out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.  3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, _because_ they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  4 and they will turn _their_ ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.  5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.





> Titus 1:9  					He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may  be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those  who contradict it.

----------


## erowe1

> St. Paul would beg to differ...


Notice there's no mention of the eucharist there. It's all about teaching. How is the elder to deal with false teaching? By rebuking it.

----------


## erowe1

> Your last statement completely goes against the teachings of the Church Fathers.


Not "the Church Fathers," but some human beings, all of whom were post-Ignatius of Antioch.




> And yet you say that the first place we encounter a Christian bishop doing this is St. Ignatius of Antioch who was taught by St. John, as if this is too far out of the Day of Pentecost to qualify as any standard practice.  Circa 50-100 is not good enough as proof?


Ignatius is ca. AD 110. We don't know where he got his views, or if he made them up. But it's easy to contrast his views with those of the apostles. We have their own writings. He clearly departed from them. His views of bishops contradicted theirs. This is an easily proven historical fact.




> You dont believe the Holy Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Christ (from what I remember you saying).  But the early Church did, or do you consider this too an innovation?


I believe as the early Church taught on this. I don't add extra details to it, like the idea that the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Christ when a priest or bishop blesses it, such that other churches that don't have one of those special priests and bishops are without access to the body and blood of Christ. What manner of presence Jesus has in the observance of the Lord's supper is not something I see any need to answer. You simply use the word "real" here, as though it's perfectly clear what that means, though it's not a word that either Jesus or the apostles ever used in this context.




> You call these things innovations and then rely on your own innovations.


If that's true, then all you have to do is show me where my beliefs concerning the apostolic faith contradict those of the apostles and I will repent of those innovations. It's that easy. 




> your church does not worship as the early Church did nor believe as the early Church believed.


There you go again, mind reader. Which church is that? Which practices and beliefs? Tell me how you know what they are, and then show me from the Bible how they contradict the teachings of the apostles.




> My proof is what the Church has handed down in fidelity to what was passed down to them.  Your proof is in picking and choosing what things you agree with (whether in Scripture or in the history and life of the Christian Church), and then disregarding the others, mocking the saints, betraying the martyrs, and belittling the Holy Spirit Who has confirmed and maintained the faith even as people as yourself wished to create a new faith.


On the contrary. You are the one who picks and chooses. You pick certain writings, certain fathers, certain councils, and hold them up and say, "These are the ones that represent the Church." The sole criterion you have for identifying these is that they're the ones you agree with. You reject the Council of Elvira, because they rejected icons. You reject the Council of Carthage, because their canon is not yours. You reject the Council of Orange, because their views on original sin are not yours. All these were bishops with as much claim to apostolic succession as any others you revere. If I reject one of your favorite ones, you say that I deny the Holy Spirit's activity in the Church. But you reject these others. Where was the Holy Spirit in them? Where was the faithful handing down of tradition in those councils? Christ's one church is, and always has been, made up of millions and millions of individuals, no two of whom agree on everything. And you look out on this host of opinions, like a vast buffet, and pick and choose the opinions, and declare them to be the ones that the Holy Spirit gave.

----------


## Matthew5

> Notice there's no mention of the eucharist there. It's all about teaching. How is the elder to deal with false teaching? By rebuking it.


Not relevant to the point...you're wrong in saying there was no "boundary setting" until Ignatius. How does one rebuke against false teaching if truth has not already been established?

----------


## erowe1

> Not relevant to the point...you're wrong in saying there was no "boundary setting" until Ignatius. How does one rebuke against false teaching if truth has not already been established?


There was a context to that. Ignatius had his ways of boundary setting that were innovations that did not go back to the apostles. It was those that I was talking about. TER had just described this post-Ignatian view of the eucharist in the post I was replying to. Notice the quote that I was directly answering in that post.

Doctrinal boundaries were always there. They are defined by content, not by people who belong to a club, where only certain bishops and those who observe a eucharist under their leadership are in the club, and everyone else in the world is outside it. Ignatius himself, in departing from the faith of the apostles on these matters crossed those boundaries himself. And no title that he could claim could ameliorate that.

----------


## erowe1

> Precisely because there were other writings which were passed down as being apostolic did these councils form.


What councils? Matthew5 mentioned one, a local one only. Do you know of others?

----------


## TER

> Notice there's no mention of the eucharist there. It's all about teaching. How is the elder to deal with false teaching? By rebuking it.


You still don't understand the central place of the Eucharist in the Church.  In this you have a different understanding of the faith then the early Church.




> Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Since there is *one bread*, we who are many are *one body*; for we all partake of the *one bread*. 
> 
> - 1 Corinthians 10


The cup of blessing is the Eucharist.  St Paul clearly affirms it is the the blood of Christ and the body of Christ and that sharing of it makes them one body, the body of Christ.  Now you will add your innovative interpretations, but for the early Christians, who gave their lives for this truth, enough to sneak in the middle of the night in the catacombs to partake of this Manna from Heaven, they did believe it to be that which Christ said:




> _And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
> 
>  Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins_
> 
> - Matthew 26


Now you might add your innovative interpretation that He was being symbolic and not really meant what He said.  But the early Church believed Christ's words and held true to His instructions.




> _ I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
> 
>  The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
> 
>  Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
> 
> These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
> 
> Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
> ...


The bolded apart above was ALWAYS understood to refer to the Holy Eucharist by the early Church and never in any of the Christian commentaries is this denied until the 1600's when it began to be rejected by those who wouldn't accept this hard saying, just as disciples of his left when He spoke those things long ago.

You said " What manner of presence Jesus has in the observance of the Lord's supper is not something I see any need to answer. You simply use the word "real" here, as though it's perfectly clear what that means, though it's not a word that either Jesus or the apostles ever used in this context."

Well, I believe Christ was being very clear on His real Presence, as did the early Church and those who carried the faith down the ages so that you could sit here and judge them now at your leisure.

Christ's Church is made up of millions and millions of people, that much you said is true.  But while they are not two exactly alike, those who share in the "cup of blessing which _we_ bless", the Holy Eucharist, of the One Bread and in One Body, do share in unity of faith with regards to truths which are not negotiable, such as the Holy Eucharist being the very Body and very Blood of Christ.  You deny this, fine, do as you wish.




> _There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;  one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all._
> 
> -Ephesians 4





> For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;  and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
> 
>  For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
> 
>  Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.  For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
> 
> - 1 Corinthians 11


Now you may add you innovative interpretation that St. Paul was not talking about the Eucharist mentioned above to be the real Body and Blood of the Lord, but you have NO evidence to suggest that such an interpretation was ever believed or espoused by anyone in the early Church.  

Where is YOUR evidence that the early Christians did not understand the Holy Eucharist to be that which has been handed down for 2000 years in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church?  Since what you believe hinges so much on 'evidence', then what evidence do you have to reject this proclamation, especially in light of the Scriptural support?

----------


## TER

> TER had just described this post-Ignatian view of the eucharist in the post I was replying to. Notice the quote that I was directly answering in that post.


So what is YOUR evidence that this belief is 'post-Ignatian'?

----------


## TER

From Ignatius, student of St. John, a Bishop who lived in the second half of the first century and amongst the greatest of the early saints:




> I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). 
> 
> "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


To erowe, St. Ignatius added an innovation.  This saint lived in the first century and erowe thinks he fooled the entire Christian communities spread in the lands of Judea and the Roman Empire and added a new teaching (how convenient for erowe!  Now if only erowe can show us how he figured this out!). 

St. Ignatius was anointed Bishop by the laying of the hands (not sure if by St. John but probably not because the latter was in exile at the time).  Nevertheless, he was anointed in Antioch, the place where the believers were first called Christians and within just a generation of the Apostles.  

 He was chosen not because he was wishy-washy with the faith or unreliable with the teachings and ready to add his own new teachings (though, being a man, of course, he might err as others unfortunately have).  He was chosen to be Bishop of the great city of Antioch precisely because he was deemed a reliable witness to the faith and shepherd to the people.  And the confirmation of his orthodoxy and steadfastness to the truth is by the people of the Church, the lay believers who then and still now centuries later consider him a saint.  But to erowe, this man was just a mistaken old man who taught lies and added innovations.   I'm sorry, erowe, but I respect this man's teachings and authority much more then I do yours.  In fact, I think it is you, here in the year 2013 who has it wrong and not St. Ignatius who was fed to the lions in the Colosseum just a few years after the last Apostle's death.

----------


## TER

> There was a context to that. Ignatius had his ways of boundary setting that were innovations that did not go back to the apostles.


Tell us, erowe, from your great wisdom, how you know that what St. Ignatius did were innovations that did not go back to the apostles?  Here is a man who lived in the FIRST century, who many believe was a student of St. John the Theologian, who was well regarded and known around the Christian world at that time, and you have the audacity to make a positive statement like the one you just did above?  How do you know he did not follow the instructions and teachings of the apostles?  Perhaps you could have done a better job then him?  You must think so since you slander him and claim to know better then him what the Apostles truly taught!  

Interesting, that for your interpretations to be true and correct, we have to go back and make the earliest heroes and the saints of the faith all the way back to the first century! to be misguided heretics who taught innovative teachings which were in accordance to the apostles.  Thank goodness we have you here to illuminate us to the real truths, which the early Christians obviously weren't good enough to pass down!

----------


## Eagles' Wings

TER, there are millions of true Christians who do not believe in the apostolic succession through the "Church Fathers" as you do. 

Not long ago, you and Gunny had a very interesting conversation about Messianic Jews/Hebrew Roots believers.  

While I believe you to be a person who wants to be loving, there is an edge that I continue to find troubling in your responses, particularly to Erowe.  While he can certainly hold his own, and certainly does not need any defense, I am perplexed with your angst with him.  

After spending years (decades) as a Roman Catholic, I understand the desire to prove its dogmas/doctrines.  It was in-bred in us to do so.  It is often not out of love, but out of pride and superiorty.  We were not taught to bring people to Christ, but to bring them into the Church.  One would think that is one and the same, but I assure you it is not.  

I just witnessed a new convert coming into the Roman Church.  I heard she had serious concerns about several doctrines.  She was told, just pick and choose what you want to believe.  That seems to be the rule of day now.  And I'm sure you are troubled by this in your church as well.

----------


## erowe1

> So what is YOUR evidence that this belief is 'post-Ignatian'?


This will require a longer post than I can give tonight. But it's easy to see that it does not agree with the apostles' practice by looking at their own writings. For example, after the early persecution of believers in Jerusalem, they all scattered, except for the apostles who remained there. And those who scattered went everywhere preaching the word (Acts 8:4). All these ordinary believers spread the Church, many of them among Jews only, but some of them among Gentiles (Acts 11:19-26), including at at Antioch. Only after many of these Gentiles believed the Gospel, becoming members of the Church, did Barnabas go to encourage them. Before Barnabas got there, before there were any elders ordained by the apostles, the Church was already there.

The same can be said about the churches that existed at Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to them. They belonged to the one universal Church. Their baptism was baptism into the same Lord Jesus as all Christians throughout the world. Their partaking of the Lord's supper did not lack genuineness just because they lacked apostolically ordained elders. They had not been founded by any apostle or anyone sent by any apostle. Paul hoped yet to get there and edify those churches, knowing that in doing so he would not build on another's foundation. There was no bishop over all the churches of Rome (nor would there be until some time in the second century even later than the death of Ignatius). What made them members of this worldwide body of Christ? It was not because of some connection to some individual, or some place within a worldwide hierarchical structure. It was their faith. There existed a form (Greek _typos_) of teaching that Paul understood was being passed on by all those who brought the Gospel to new places. And these Roman Christians "held fast to that form of teaching which they were entrusted" (Romans 6:17). Without any background in that Church, Paul already takes for granted a great deal of knowledge about what they believe and have been taught, because the Church was unified around these beliefs.

And then there's 1 Corinthians. As far as church leadership goes, the assemblies of believers in Corinth at that early time when Paul wrote this first epistle to them, they were a hot mess. You can see this in chapter 14. It was ordinary men of the church who did the teaching and leading of their meetings. Paul told them to go about this in an orderly way, and in all these instructions about order in these assemblies, he makes no mention of any elder or overseer or deacon. By all appearances, there were none there yet. And yet they were observing the Lord's supper, following the tradition that they had received going back to the night Jesus was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23-34). Paul also had instructions about how to go about that. He insisted that they not partake in an unworthy manner. And whom did he make responsible for seeing to it that they partook worthily? Each and every one of them as individuals were to examine themselves (11:27). Again, there is no mention of any elder, overseer, or deacon. Even in enjoining them in the orderly method partaking in the meal, he identifies no specific person in these churches who was to oversee this. And their communion in the Lord's supper was genuine. It was as much the body and blood of the Lord as any other Lord's supper practiced by any other Christians anywhere. It was "communion with the body of Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:16). Unworthy participation in it made someone "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (11:27), for failure of "discerning the Lord's body" (11:29).

So, yes, when Ignatius came along many decades later and said that you can only be part of Christ's church if you partake in a eucharist overseen by one of his approved bishops, he departed from the apostolic faith. And those post-Ignatian Christians who followed his lead followed him in error.

If you need quotes from Ignatius to see specific things he said that contradicted the older apostolic practice, they will be easy to provide.

Ignatius was not infallible. His letters were not divinely inspired. And as far as I know, church tradition makes no pretense that he was.

----------


## erowe1

> Now you might add your innovative interpretation that He was being symbolic and not really meant what He said.
> 
> ...
> 
> You deny this, fine, do as you wish.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now you may add you innovative interpretation that St. Paul was not talking about the Eucharist


You just can't do it, can you? You can't actually let me say what my beliefs are. You have to tell me what they are so that you can then shoot down your version of the silly statements you wish I would hand you on a silver platter with your scripted apologetic lines.

You made a good show of it. I think you lasted almost a day.

I might as well not participate here. I should just let you play both parts in this debate.

----------


## TER

> TER, there are millions of true Christians who do not believe in the apostolic succession through the "Church Fathers" as you do. 
> 
> Not long ago, you and Gunny had a very interesting conversation about Messianic Jews/Hebrew Roots believers.  
> 
> While I believe you to be a person who wants to be loving, there is an edge that I continue to find troubling in your responses, particularly to Erowe.  While he can certainly hold his own, and certainly does not need any defense, I am perplexed with your angst with him.  
> 
> After spending years (decades) as a Roman Catholic, I understand the desire to prove its dogmas/doctrines.  It was in-bred in us to do so.  It is often not out of love, but out of pride and superiorty.  We were not taught to bring people to Christ, but to bring them into the Church.  One would think that is one and the same, but I assure you it is not.  
> 
> I just witnessed a new convert coming into the Roman Church.  I heard she had serious concerns about several doctrines.  She was told, just pick and choose what you want to believe.  That seems to be the rule of day now.  And I'm sure you are troubled by this in your church as well.


Louise, I am not troubled by anything the Orthodox Church has proclaimed and defended and expressed, especially with regards to the Seven Ecumenical Councils.  If I don't understand something, then it is I and my own weakness which is the cause for this. 

I hate these types of discussions and would much rather have the discussions we had recently in this forum, which fostered love and friendship.  But when God-bearing saints of the Church are slandered in order for someone to puff themselves up as some kind of standard bearer for the truth, then my peace gets disturbed and I speak up.  Should I?  Probably not.  There is nothing erowe has said which can change the experiences I have had within the sacramental life of the Orthodox Church.  Nor anything he has said which has shaken my faith.  But I am a sinner and not as meek as I should be and can be pushed to anger on account of my weaknesses.  

And Louise, as I have said repeatedly, there are Christians who believe many different things who are not in communion with the Orthodox Church who will get to heaven before me, great sinner that I am.  But the distortions and the lies that are being spread, the slandering and mocking of the saints and the martyrs of the Church, these things I find hard to allow to go unchallenged lest others stumble because of it.

----------


## erowe1

> But the distortions and the lies that are being spread, the slandering and mocking of the saints and the martyrs of the Church, these things I find hard to allow to go unchallenged lest others stumble because of it.


What are you getting at here? Did I lie? Did I slander anyone?

If that's what you mean, I trust you can provide the actual quotes where I did.

----------


## TER

> What are you getting at here? Did I lie? Did I slander anyone?
> 
> If that's what you mean, I trust you can provide the actual quotes where I did.


In this thread alone you called St. John of Damascus an idol worshiper.  You stated that St. Ignatius changed the understanding of the Holy Eucharist, in effect making him a heretic.  You put yourself above saints and your interpretations to be the standard of the truth.  Have I done such a thing?  We use the same Scriptures but believe different things.  Your beliefs based on your own interpretations and your own judgements, mine on the interpretations and the judgements of a Church which predates me and can trace itself by apostolic succession to the beginning of the Church.  

You say in your post above how the apostles structured the Church based upon your readings.  But if your readings are incomplete?  And your interpretations wrong?  What if the structuring was a process, a process they initiated and taught but you don't have the complete written records of?  What do you have to correct yourself if your knowledge is limited and your interpretations wrong?  I do not rely on my own mind to formulate truths but humble myself to the witness of the Church, knowing that I am but a flea.  God help me if I started to use my own mind to be the standard for the truth!  I have chosen others, great then me to do this role simply because they were filled by the Holy Spirit while I wallow in my weakness and sin.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Does one really need to worry about being mocked and slandered?  Are we not to expect it as Christians?

Just today a grand lie is being told about a close friend of mine.  In the name of Christ, she is choosing to forgive and not defend herself.  She asked my opinion and I said it was the prudent thing to do.  

Those whom you believe to be saints and martyrs will be defended by our Lord if that is His will.  Perhaps these holy people would be the first to say, "lay down your swords".

Let us return to the uplifting talk of the past then.  Heaven knows we need it.

----------


## Matthew5

> Does one really need to worry about being mocked and slandered?  Are we not to expect it as Christians?
> 
> Just today a grand lie is being told about a close friend of mine.  In the name of Christ, she is choosing to forgive and not defend herself.  She asked my opinion and I said it was the prudent thing to do.  
> 
> Those whom you believe to be saints and martyrs will be defended by our Lord if that is His will.  Perhaps these holy people would be the first to say, "lay down your swords".
> 
> Let us return to the uplifting talk of the past then.  Heaven knows we need it.


This is a different scenario as we're purposefully engaged in debate. Although, I've noticed the fruitlessness of it in recent pages. It sounds like a fundamentals of Christian history thread would be more appropriate rather than hashing this out on "extracurricular" topics.

----------


## erowe1

> In this thread alone you called St. John of Damascus an idol worshiper.


Somebody else quoted him saying that himself. I used that term in referring back to his own words.




> You stated that St. Ignatius changed the understanding of the Holy Eucharist, in effect making him a heretic.


Heretic is your word, not mine.

His teaching on the topic does not agree with the apostles. This is provable. You only have to read their writings. I don't believe that all these people you call "Church Fathers" agreed on everything. If you think they did, then I can't comprehend that. Saying that someone's doctrine differed from someone else's is not slander. He made a mistake. We have no reason to put him on a pedestal and imagine that he would be immune to mistakes.

In Ignatius's case, I think his views are understandable in his own context. I believe he was making a good faith effort to counter heresies. And I don't think he could have fathomed what the consequences of his teachings were going to end up being as vast swaths of Christendom would eventually come under their influence.




> You put yourself above saints and your interpretations to be the standard of the truth.


One of two things is true. Either you will provide a quote of me doing this, or you are a liar.

This is exactly the kind of thing you've done again and again in this thread and others.

Notice that in this very post I'm replying to, you responded to my request for actual quotes of me lying or slandering anyone without providing a single one. The claim that I lied was especially ironic.


ETA: The post that contains the quote from John of Damascus, where he advocates worshiping images is #91. The only times I referred to him doing that were based on what he said in that quote. Also, unless I missed it, nobody had any problem with what I said, until long after the fact, you brought it up here out of the blue as proof that I lied.

----------


## erowe1

Since TER accused me of lying, I want to point back to what I was referring to with respect to John of Damascus. Here again is the quote that was given from him in post 91. Unfortunately, I do not have more information about exactly where this quote comes from, since Matthew5 didn't post any. So I'm just commenting on what's here:



> "Since this is the case, following the royal path and the teaching divinely inspired by our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the catholic Church—for we know that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in it—we decide in all correctness and after a thorough examination that, just as the holy and vivifying Cross, similarly the holy and precious Icons painted with colors, made with little stones or with any other matter serving this purpose (epitedeios), should be placed in the holy churches of God, on vases and sacred vestments, on walls and boards, in houses and on roads, whether these are Icons of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ, or of our spotless Sovereign Lady, the holy Mother of God, or of the holy angels and of holy and venerable men. For each time that we see their representation in an image, each time, while gazing upon them, we are made to remember the prototypes, we grow to love them more, and we are more induced to worship them by kissing them and by witnessing our veneration (proskenesin), not the true adoration (latreian) which, according to our faith, is proper only to the one divine nature, but in the same way as we venerate the image of the precious and vivifying cross, the holy Gospel and other sacred objects which we honor with incense and candles according to the pious custom of our forefathers. For the honor rendered to the image goes to its prototype, and the person who venerates an Icon venerates the person represented in it. Indeed, such is the teaching of our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the holy catholic Church which propagated the Gospel from one end of the earth to the other."


Notice that John of Damascus distinguishes two kinds of worship, one using the Greek word _proskunesis_, the other using the Greek word _latreia_. Notice also that he explicitly argues that only _latreia_ is forbidden to be given to images, but that _proskunesis_ can be given to them.

_Proskunesis_ refers to outward displays of worship. As John of Damascus draws the distinction, _latreia_ is that true adoration that is intended toward Jesus when giving these outward displays of _proskunesis_ to his image.

This is similar to the distinction RJB made above when he asked me if I could see into someone's heart when I said that I saw them praying to an image of Jesus. I was referring to what John of Damascus calls _proskunesis_, and RJB was referring to what he calls _latreia_.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but had been translated into Greek already before the time of Christ. The Old Testament that John of Damascus used was derived from these ancient Greek translations of it. Thus, what I refer to below will indicate the Greek words used in his own Bible.

Exodus 20:4-5 (from the 10 Commandments)



> 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 [_proskuneseis_] them or serve [_latreuseis_] 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 same words are used in the version in Deuteronomy 5:8-9

Exodus 32:8 (when Israel worshiped an image of the LORD, depicted as a golden calf)



> They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped [_proskunekasin_] it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, 'This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!'"


Leviticus 26:1



> 'You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down [_proskunesai_] to it; for I am the LORD your God.


Notice in these prohibitions of idolatry two things: 1) They do not only prohibit _latreia_, or inward adoration, of the images, but also _proskunesis_, or outward displays of worship toward them. 2) They do not only prohibit this for images of false gods that rivaled the one true God, but also images of God himself.

So, what I said earlier in the discussion about what John of Damascus advocated was an accurate statement. I did not intend it as a lie or slander. And I continue to believe that it was neither of those.

----------


## moostraks

> I have no fear about you, moostraks.    You strike me as someone who is willing to open your heart and turn to truths which may be tough subjects at this point for your mind to grasp.


 Thank you. I know in my mind how the icons are used but for me the practice would be a distraction. (I own several but to go to Church where they are venerated would be a problem for me. Ironic huh?) It has to do with my cultural upbringing. So I leave myself open for change. 

I know there are different learning styles when teaching children so I employ different means to reach my children where they are at so they grasp a concept and can move forward. I believe He is so much greater at knowing our needs as His children. So I trust that I shall overcome this in due time as long as I remain open to the issue or it was never a necessity for my final outcome. I pray I am walking by faith on this issue and not my own will but His.

----------


## jmdrake

I'm not sure how this morphed from a discussion about icons and the 2nd commandment to one about the eucharist and apostolic succession.  Is that the fall back answer for Catholics/Orthodox Christians?  We have the eucharist and apostolic succession so whether we are right or not on anything else doesn't matter?

I have two questions that haven't been answered.

1) Is burying a statue of St. Jude in my backyard in the hopes that somehow it will make it easier to sell my house idolatry?  If not, why not?  What separates that from me burying a statue of an ancient African ancestor?

2) Am I the only one that sees the significance of the phrase "unto thee" in the second commandment?  The ark, the temple angels, the serpent Moses raised in the wilderness were all commissioned by God.  I see no parallel between them and some image God didn't commission.  And no, I don't think the "church" commissioning something is equivalent to God commissioning it.  That said, I have no problem with anyone commissioning art.  But I wouldn't commission art and then in any way venerate it.  For an example of what I consider venerating art, see question #1.

----------


## Matthew5

> I'm not sure how this morphed from a discussion about icons and the 2nd commandment to one about the eucharist and apostolic succession.  Is that the fall back answer for Catholics/Orthodox Christians?  We have the eucharist and apostolic succession so whether we are right or not on anything else doesn't matter?


It's somewhat of a side argument that I believe TER has already started a new thread for. No, it's not a fall-back answer, but an issue that must be addressed in order to debate on mutual ground. I was unaware of erowe's different view of Christian history and it makes it very difficult to debate matters like iconography when you're speaking two different languages. 

But since you mentioned it, yes the ancient Church is a much higher authority on these matters than a 21st century Protestant. Their words are extrememly important as they were much closer to the source than we are. The EO/RC Church has protected that lineage...although some will disagree that Roman Catholics have after the schism...but that's another debate all together. 





> I have two questions that haven't been answered.
> 
> 1) Is burying a statue of St. Jude in my backyard in the hopes that somehow it will make it easier to sell my house idolatry?  If not, why not?  What separates that from me burying a statue of an ancient African ancestor?
> 
> 2) Am I the only one that sees the significance of the phrase "unto thee" in the second commandment?  The ark, the temple angels, the serpent Moses raised in the wilderness were all commissioned by God.  I see no parallel between them and some image God didn't commission.  And no, I don't think the "church" commissioning something is equivalent to God commissioning it.  That said, I have no problem with anyone commissioning art.  But I wouldn't commission art and then in any way venerate it.  For an example of what I consider venerating art, see question #1.


1: Yes. It implies that the statue holds the power and in positioning it in a certain way, it will unlock these powers. It's disrespectful of the image anyway, so it's hardly veneration.

2: I'll repost Fr. Dcn. Whiteford's repsonse:




> *5. Doesn't the 2nd Commandment forbid Icons?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated "graven images" mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment.  Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrewsand when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as _"eidoloi",_ i.e. "idols." Furthermore the Hebrew word _pesel_ is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.
>   Let's look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely:   "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven   image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the   earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to   them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command.  If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all imagesthen even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol.  So either every Protestant with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
>   Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what this text actually says about them.  You shall not make x,  you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x.  If x = image, then the  Temple itself violates this Commandment.  If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons. 
> ...


Here's another interesting answer that might address your point:




> The Orthodox view of the matter can be expressed as follows, and it  is a convergence of factors: (1) the Old Testament does forbid idolatry  and in the context of the commandments of Sinai forbids graven images,  but this must be understood in the context where (a) the Israelites are  coming out of Egypt which was notorious for idolatry, (b) the Israelites  has a great propensity toward this sin as we see in the incident of the  Golden Calf and as we will see the Brass Serpent, (c) God informs Moses  that the foundation is "you have not seen my form" (Deut 2:32-33). In  spite of this prohibition, God does ordain that certain types of graven  images be made, not only the Ark and the embroidered curtain with  angels, but most notably the Brass Serpent.
> 
> 
>  The Brass Serpent is critical to help us understand the fundamental  difference between icon and idol. This object was ordained by God to  serve as icon - and it was in fact an icon of the "Icon of the invisible  God" (Col 1:15) who is the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:14) - and it ended  up being misused as an idol (2 Kings 18:4).
>  The difference between idol and icon is whether the _latreia_  (divine service) is directed to the ultimate source (in Orthodox  theology to God the Father) or stops at the person or thing which then  becomes an idol. _Proskunesis_ (to express adoration, to offer  relative worship) is an act of reverence which can be suitable for  things and people other than God, but this depends on the intention and  context. _Proskunesis_ is not idolatry if it is offered in a  relative sense, with the intention to refer all things to the divine  source. For instance, all honor is due to God, but we offer honor to  parents and kings / rulers with reference to God who is the source and  authority.
>  The fact is that representations of things, angels and people were  used during Old Testament times and in people's lives. Today, people who  refuse the use of religious images are surrounded and surround  themselves with all kings of images, and we have the strange situation  of 'iconoclastic Christians' who have photos of people and animal all  around them but nothing to remind them of Christ and the saints!
> 
> 
>  In the New Testament, the invisible God who could not be seen on  Sinai has revealed himself through his Only Begotten Son and Icon, and  we worship and honor the Father through the Son - the uncreated perfect  icon of the Father, even as the Scriptures command. For this reason, all  Christians - even those who reject icons - must admit that they do  worship an icon, the Lord Jesus Christ himself. God the Father is in  fact the great icon generating God - he eternally begets his co-eternal  Son and Word, and in time he has created human beings in the "image  (icon in Greek) and likeness of God."
> ...

----------


## eduardo89

> 1) Is burying a statue of St. Jude in my backyard in the hopes that somehow it will make it easier to sell my house idolatry?  If not, why not?  What separates that from me burying a statue of an ancient African ancestor?


Yes, that is idolatry and such actions were condemned by the Council of Trent. 




> Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; *not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent;* in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.

----------


## RJB

A somewhat response to Erowe1.  I'm still reading, as usual you ask good questions.

To Exodus 32
Im searching and cant find a reference to the Hebrews seeing their God as a cow, bull, or calf.  You made an interesting point about the plural of God.  Im still looking that up.  It deserves it own thread.

One reason for this whole argument stems from the 1500s.   The commandments arent numbered in the bible, but traditionally the Hebrews and the Apostolic Churches held together what the reformers divided:



> Jewish
> 1.	I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
> 2.	*Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image,* nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.


Catholics later combined 1 and 2 into:



> 1.	I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.  Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.


Catholics split the tenth because lust for a wife is adultery, desire of possessions  is theft.

Besides inventing  new doctrines like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, redefining the sacrament of marriage, the reformers also split that commandments, into: 



> 1.	Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 2.	Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments


The 2nd commandment by itself is a bit irrational.  Why does God get jealous over making an image.  Without the first part about no Gods beside him, That means artist and photographers who make any image are doomed.  There are some Christian denominations who are against photograph because of this literal interpretations.
I also fail to see how God gets Jealous about kissing an image of his son.  It would be like your wife getting jealous because you kissed her photo.

----------


## RJB

Burying St Jude is as Catholic as carrying a rabbits foot or reading horoscopes, as in:  it isn't Catholic, but that doesn't stop them.

----------


## erowe1

> A somewhat response to Erowe1.  I'm still reading, as usual you ask good questions.
> 
> To Exodus 32
> I’m searching and can’t find a reference to the Hebrews seeing their God as a cow, bull, or calf.  You made an interesting point about the plural of God.  I’m still looking that up.  It deserves it own thread.
> 
> One reason for this whole argument stems from the 1500s.   The commandments aren’t numbered in the bible, but traditionally the Hebrews and the Apostolic Churches held together what the reformers divided:
> 
> Catholics later combined 1 and 2 into:
> 
> ...


I don't think that it matters how you number the commandments. The prohibition of bowing down to a manmade image of anything in earth or heaven is still there. Aaron's call for having a feast unto the LORD in Exodus 32 tells me that that's who he meant the golden calf to be. But even if you ignore that point, the commandment itself leaves no room for bowing down to any manmade image that is supposed to be an image of the one true God, and this commandment refers not only to inward adoration, but also to outward displays of it.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's somewhat of a side argument that I believe TER has already started a new thread for. No, it's not a fall-back answer, but an issue that must be addressed in order to debate on mutual ground. I was unaware of erowe's different view of Christian history and it makes it very difficult to debate matters like iconography when you're speaking two different languages. 
> 
> But since you mentioned it, yes the ancient Church is a much higher authority on these matters than a 21st century Protestant. Their words are extrememly important as they were much closer to the source than we are. The EO/RC Church has protected that lineage...although some will disagree that Roman Catholics have after the schism...but that's another debate all together.


Well I don't give authority to either.  I know that bothers TER and maybe you as well.  I'm happy to read anything from anyone and if there is some matter that isn't an issue of contradicting clear scripture then I'm happy to consult church history tradition on the matter.  Example is that I'm glad there is a story of what happened to apostles who's martyrdom isn't recorded like St. Thomas.  Anyway, I saw the new thread posted, but thanks for the reference to it.




> 1: Yes. It implies that the statue holds the power and in positioning it in a certain way, it will unlock these powers. It's disrespectful of the image anyway, so it's hardly veneration.


And yet my Catholic friend didn't think so.  I'm sure that I don't perfectly reflect my church so it could be he was just off base.  I'm curious, though, how he missed the seemingly important point that this was not the proper use of a St. Jude statue?




> 2: I'll repost Fr. Dcn. Whiteford's repsonse:


Interesting.  He makes the same point that I did that the brass serpent was ordained by God.  But he seems to gloss over the point that modern icons aren't specifically ordained by God.  Or if they are, neither he nor anyone else I've seen has ever made the claim.  So we have non-God ordained objects that are being set up as potential stumbling blocks.  Maybe someone kisses a statue of St. Jude and says "This reminds me that God will help me no matter how hopeless my cause is."  Or maybe the person thinks "This statue will help me" or "St. Jude will help me" or "St. Jude will intercede to God on my behalf."  (A odd claim considering that 1 Timothy 2:5 says Christ is our only intercessor.)

----------


## RJB

> I don't think that it matters how you number the commandments. The prohibition of bowing down to a manmade image of anything in earth or heaven is still there. Aaron's call for having a feast unto the LORD in Exodus 32 tells me that that's who he meant the golden calf to be. But even if you ignore that point, the commandment itself leaves no room for bowing down to any manmade image that is supposed to be an image of the one true God, and this commandment refers not only to inward adoration, but also to outward displays of it.


The protestant 2nd doesn't make sense by itself unless you are against art and photos.  It says 


> 2.Thou shalt not make unto thee* any graven image, or any likeness of any thing* that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:


  Also, why would God (a rational God) get anymore jealous for kissing the picture of his son than your wife for you kissing her photo?

----------


## RJB

> I don't think that it matters how you number the commandments.


If true, why did it stand one way for almost 3000 years and then suddenly get split in the 1500s?

----------


## jmdrake

> The protestant 2nd doesn't make sense by itself unless you are against art and photos.  It says   Also, why would God (a rational God) get anymore jealous for kissing the picture of his son than your wife for you kissing her photo?


The icons don't just stop with pictures of Jesus.  Or do they?  Are there not statues of Mary, other saints and even angels?  The problem comes in when the worshipper thinks "This angel/saint can do something for me."

----------


## erowe1

> The EO/RC Church has protected that lineage...although some will disagree that Roman Catholics have after the schism.


Some?

On the contrary, if you believe that the EO church has protected that lineage, then you are positively obligated by the laws of logic to believe that the RC church has not, and vice versa.

Then there's the Coptic church, and the Syriac church, all of which hold doctrines that are mutually exclusive of one another and anathematize those who disagree. And then there are all the local councils of bishops who supposedly also had the same apostolic succession and lineage as EO, RC, Coptic, Syriac, etc.

If you believe that it is OK to have images in your church (as I do), then you must believe that the bishops at the council of Elvira (over 400 years closer to the time of the apostles than the ones at Nicea in the 700s) didn't protect that lineage. If you believe that 3 Maccabees belongs in the Bible, then you don't believe that the bishops at the Council of Carthage in 397 protected that lineage. If you believe that Sirach belongs in the Bible, then you also don't believe that the bishops at the Council of Carthage protected that lineage. If you believe that Adam's sin did not make all people sinners, including infants, then you don't believe that the bishops at the Council of Orange in 529 protected that lineage.

If you want to say that there's some pure lineage of traducing pure doctrine going back to the apostles, then you have to go through history and pick and choose where the Holy Spirit was at work and where he wasn't, which bishops with apostolic succession were in and which were out. Theology for you is a buffet with no firm standard by which to measure anything. Yes, of course you can just pick whichever church you happen to attend and draw a genealogy from it back to the apostles and declare that (lucky you) that's the line of true succession that kept the doctrines pure. But is that the honest approach? And what do you do when you look into the evidence we have available of earlier stages of Christian history and find that some of the things your denomination tells you it got from an oral tradition passed down from the apostles were unknown to Christians in the Church's earliest centuries? Just put your head in the sand and decry the study of actual evidence as rationalism?

----------


## jmdrake

> If true, why did it stand one way for almost 3000 years and then suddenly get split in the 1500s?


I think the point erowe1 was making is that regardless of how you number the commandments, the prohibition against worshipping graven images still stands.  As a Protestant he probably doesn't agree with the renumbering of the commandments.

----------


## eduardo89

> The icons don't just stop with pictures of Jesus.  Or do they?  Are there not statues of Mary, other saints and even angels?  *The problem comes in when the worshipper things "This angel/saint can do something for me."*


Which is why the Council of Trent condemned this.

----------


## erowe1

> If true, why did it stand one way for almost 3000 years and then suddenly get split in the 1500s?


I don't know. But it didn't stand one way for 3000 years. As you pointed out, there were already differences in numbering them, and the differences didn't stop with what you posted.

Here's something you can do to see why. Take the 10 commandments without any verse numbers or divisions, and just try to count how many commandments are there. It's not clear that there really are 10, or how to divide them if there are, unless you go into it with the assumption that they are "the Ten Commandments."

And also, during that 3000 years you talk about, the view that the Ten Commandments prohibited worshiping images made of the one true God held sway as the normal view among both Jews and Christians regardless how they numbered them.

----------


## Matthew5

> And yet my Catholic friend didn't think so.  I'm sure that I don't perfectly reflect my church so it could be he was just off base.  I'm curious, though, how he missed the seemingly important point that this was not the proper use of a St. Jude statue?


My only guess is a cultural superstition.  I'm not sure how he came up with it.




> Interesting.  He makes the same point that I did that the brass serpent was ordained by God.  But he seems to gloss over the point that modern icons aren't specifically ordained by God.  Or if they are, neither he nor anyone else I've seen has ever made the claim.  So we have non-God ordained objects that are being set up as potential stumbling blocks.  Maybe someone kisses a statue of St. Jude and says "This reminds me that God will help me no matter how hopeless my cause is."  Or maybe the person thinks "This statue will help me" or "St. Jude will help me" or "St. Jude will intercede to God on my behalf."  (A odd claim considering that 1 Timothy 2:5 says Christ is our only intercessor.)


Two things we have to remember here when dealing with the Old Testament...God is dealing with a people who have just been inundated with Egyptian culture and religious practices. Idols were a much more literal thing to the pagan faiths. Also, God has not been seen, so therefore, any attempt to recreate His image would have been an utter failure. 

But God did reveal Himself in the flesh and we can recreate that image. He was a man of flesh and blood, had eye color, skin tone, laughed, needed food...He was fully man. So we can't place too much weight on the Old Testament. You're dealing with a different group of people in a different standard.

And I believe your last point in phrasing those statements are key. Jesus is indeed our only intercessor, and we never pray for the saints or the Mother of God to act on their own accord. We ask that they pray for us, much like we would our fellow Christians when we are in time of need. The icon does not replace God, nor do we pray TO an icon...merely in the presence of one.

----------


## RJB

> I think the point erowe1 was making is that regardless of how you number the commandments, the prohibition against worshipping graven images still stands.  As a Protestant he probably doesn't agree with the renumbering of the commandments.


But it starts out saying you should not make ANY image.  THEN it mentions not bowing, etc.  If the commandment doesn't start with "You shall have no other God."  It sounds that you should make ANY image period...

It does make a difference.  So why suddenly after 3000 years do you change it?

----------


## erowe1

> I think the point erowe1 was making is that regardless of how you number the commandments, the prohibition against worshipping graven images still stands.  As a Protestant he probably doesn't agree with the renumbering of the commandments.


You're right that that was my point.

But I don't really care about how they're numbered. I grant that it isn't clear from the text how they are supposed to be. I feel no partisan commitment to following a view because it's supposedly Protestant.

I think that's one of the ways that the EO/RC posters here don't understand the mindset of other Christians. For them, allegiance to the doctrines of certain teachers is obligatory. When they act like I believe something because somebody in the 16th century said it and I supposedly just follow whatever that person taught, I think they're projecting.

----------


## erowe1

> But it starts out saying you should not make ANY image.  THEN it mentions not bowing, etc.  If the commandment doesn't start with "You shall have no other God."  It sounds that you should make ANY image period...
> 
> It does make a difference.  So why suddenly after 3000 years do you change it?


Can I ask where you got the 3000 year number?

ETA: I have to hurry, so I won't be able to wait for your reply.

Here's a good summary of different numberings of the commandments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Com...n_Commandments

Notice that all the different sources they mention for these numberings range in date from the first century AD up through the 16th century AD. There are no sources for any numbering scheme older than Philo in the 1st century AD. So this range of dates spans about 1500 years.

Also notice that the Reformers were not the first interpreters to put a division after "other gods" and before "graven images." In fact, the two very oldest sources on the list, Philo and the Septuagint, both put a division at that point.

----------


## Matthew5

> Some?


That was more a light ribbing for Eduardo, who I know is active on this thread. 

Save the rest for another thread.

----------


## RJB

> I don't know. But it didn't stand one way for 3000 years. As you pointed out, there were already differences in numbering them, and the differences didn't stop with what you posted.
> 
> Here's something you can do to see why. Take the 10 commandments without any verse numbers or divisions, and just try to count how many commandments are there. It's not clear that there really are 10, or how to divide them if there are, unless you go into it with the assumption that they are "the Ten Commandments."
> 
> And also, during that 3000 years you talk about, the view that the Ten Commandments prohibited worshiping images made of the one true God held sway as the normal view among both Jews and *Christians* regardless how they numbered them.


I don't know about the Jews but with Christians it wasn't *until the 1500s when they divided the Commandment.*

----------


## RJB

> Can I ask where you got the 3000 year number?


Moses lived about 1300 BC.  The reformation was in the 1500s.

----------


## RJB

I'm need a break.  As charming as this forum is, my beautiful wife is coming home soon and I gotta spend some time with her.

----------


## Matthew5

> 4 And the Lord  commanded me at that time, to teach you ordinances and judgments, that  ye should do them on the land, into which ye go to inherit it. 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, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any beast of those that are on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird which flies under heaven, 18 the  likeness of any reptile which creeps on the earth, the likeness of any  fish of those which are in the waters under the earth; 19 and  lest having looked up to the sky, and having seen the sun and the moon  and the stars, and all the heavenly bodies, thou shouldest go astray and  worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God has distributed to  all the nations under heaven. 20 But  God took you, and led you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the  iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be to him a people of inheritance, as at  this day.


God is clearly talking about establishing images or statues and worshiping them in place of God, as was custom in the pagan nations and certainly in Egypt. Again, contextually, this does not apply to iconography, photographs, water color paintings of birds, or anything of the sort.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're right that that was my point.
> 
> But I don't really care about how they're numbered. I grant that it isn't clear from the text how they are supposed to be. I feel no partisan commitment to following a view because it's supposedly Protestant.
> 
> I think that's one of the ways that the EO/RC posters here don't understand the mindset of other Christians. *For them, allegiance to the doctrines of certain teachers is obligatory.* *When they act like I believe something because somebody in the 16th century said it and I supposedly just follow whatever that person taught, I think they're projecting.*


This is Catholic Scholasticism.  Orthodox do not believe in this, and not all Catholics do.

----------


## eduardo89

> This is Catholic Scholasticism.  Orthodox do not believe in this, and not all Catholics do.


No, this is universal in both Churches. All Orthodox and all Catholic must accept the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (and Catholics must accept all infallible teachings of the Church which are not limited to the first seven Ecumenical Councils)

----------


## RJB

> Aaron's call for having a feast unto the LORD in Exodus 32 tells me that that's who he meant the golden calf to be.


This isn't directed to you specifically.  I'm just curious if there is anything that says why they thought God is a calf or if there is any other reference.

----------


## Matthew5

> This is Catholic Scholasticism.  Orthodox do not believe in this, and not all Catholics do.


I get what you're getting at and you're right. What I think erowe was referring to is our acceptance of that which was canonized by the Seven Ecumenical Councils as Tradition.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, this is universal in both Churches. All Orthodox and all Catholic must accept the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (and Catholics must accept all infallible teachings of the Church which are not limited to the first seven Ecumenical Councils)


Sorry.  Careless reading/responding fail.  Спасибо большой.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't know about the Jews but with Christians it wasn't *until the 1500s when they divided the Commandment.*


What do you base that on?

What about the Council of Elvira in AD 305-306?

----------


## erowe1

> This isn't directed to you specifically.  I'm just curious if there is anything that says why they thought God is a calf or if there is any other reference.


Yes. There are the calves that Jeroboam I set up in the temples of the Northern Kingdom of Israel after the division of the monarchy. There are also examples of their neighboring nations depicting God as a bull.

ETA: Here's another, and this time it's not a neighboring nation. But it's an Israelite inscription from Samaria that says "the young bull is Yah." That name, Yah, is a variation of YHWH. So it's clearly describing the one true God as a bull.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1yM...q=bull&f=false

----------


## Matthew5

> Спасибо большой.


Пожалуйста!

I hope I used that correctly.

----------


## erowe1

> Moses lived about 1300 BC.  The reformation was in the 1500s.


How do you know how Moses numbered the commandments?

It would be nice if we had that data. But if we did, there wouldn't be controversy over how to number them.

When you compare the so-called Protestant numbering with the so-called Catholic numbering, all you're doing is comparing one view from the 1500's AD with another view from the 1500's AD.

----------


## erowe1

> I get what you're getting at and you're right. What I think erowe was referring to is our acceptance of that which was canonized by the Seven Ecumenical Councils as Tradition.


That's one example. But it's an attitude I see in more things than that. It crops up every time any of you talk about this unadulterated tradition that was supposedly passed down orally from the apostles that the teachers of your denominations supposedly had access to.

----------


## erowe1

> God is clearly talking about establishing images or statues and worshiping them in place of God, as was custom in the pagan nations and certainly in Egypt. Again, contextually, this does not apply to iconography, photographs, water color paintings of birds, or anything of the sort.


That's the exact thing that John of Damascus defends in that quote you gave in post 91.

----------


## erowe1

> The protestant 2nd doesn't make sense by itself unless you are against art and photos.  It says   Also, why would God (a rational God) get anymore jealous for kissing the picture of his son than your wife for you kissing her photo?


I don't know why you call it "the Protestant 2nd."

But that's not all it says. You just cut it out of its context. The prohibition of graven images goes along with the worshiping of them. And this prohibition doesn't only apply to graven images of false gods, but of anything in heaven or earth. This much is there no matter how you number the commandments.

----------


## RJB

> What do you base that on?


Google "historic Christian Icons" 

What do you base your assertion on, a division of the commandment in the 1500s?

----------


## RJB

> Yes. There are the calves that Jeroboam I set up in the temples of the Northern Kingdom of Israel after the division of the monarchy.


  Chapter and verse?



> There are also examples of their neighboring nations depicting God as a bull.


 Yep the Egyptians.  You are mostly proving my point.

----------


## Matthew5

> I don't know why you call it "the Protestant 2nd."
> 
> But that's not all it says. You just cut it out of its context. The prohibition of graven images goes along with the worshiping of them. And this prohibition doesn't only apply to graven images of false gods, but of anything in heaven or earth. This much is there no matter how you number the commandments.


So all images are prohibited? Even paintings and photographs?

----------


## erowe1

> Google "historic Christian Icons" 
> 
> What do you base your assertion on, a division of the commandment in the 1500s?


Your division of the commandments is also one from the 1500s. Right?

And what good is googling "historic Christian icons" going to do? Do you think that something you found when you googled that proved that the view that the 2nd commandment prohibits worshiping an image of the one true God was some novelty that arose in the 1500's? If so, don't just tell me to google it, go ahead and share that proof with us. And while you're at it, why don't you get this discovery published. It would be big news in the field of the history of Christianity.

----------


## erowe1

> So all images are prohibited? Even paintings and photographs?


No. What you're saying is exactly what I just said is NOT the case. And this does not depend in any way on how you number the 10 commandments.

----------


## erowe1

> Chapter and verse?
>   Yep the Egyptians.  You are mostly proving my point.


How is that proving your point? The fact that neighboring nations did it doesn't make it right.

You need chapter and verse for Jeroboam's calves? You can't just look it up?

Just look around the beginning of 1 Kings. I'll go do that and then get back to you in case you don't have a Bible.

ETA: 1 Kings 12:28-30 among other references



> 28 After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” 29 One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. 30 And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.[d]

----------


## RJB

[QUOTE=erowe1;5307650]


> How is that proving your point? The fact that neighboring nations did it doesn't make it right.


Of course pagan had idols to strange Gods.  



> You need chapter and verse for Jeroboam's calves? You can't just look it up?


I do you the honor, it's only polite to return it.  



> Just look around the beginning of 1 Kings. I'll go do that and then get back to you *in case you don't have a Bible*.


That wasn't nice.  Calm down my brother in Christ

----------


## erowe1

RJB, let me get this straight.

Are you saying that idolatry is only worshiping images of false gods, and that worshiping images of the one true God is not idolatry?

----------


## erowe1

> Of course pagan had idols to strange Gods.


But it doesn't matter who their idols were supposed to be. Besides, you asked about Israel depicting God as a calf, and the evidence of their neighbors doing that is circumstantial evidence that supports that. It's circumstantial, but taken along with other evidence it's not irrelevant. It certainly doesn't prove that Israelites didn't do it.

----------


## erowe1

> That wasn't nice.  Calm down my brother in Christ


I'll take the bait. How was it not nice?

----------


## RJB

You tease us for our small heap of evidence of Apostolic tradition, yet I see ABSOLUTELY none from you.  I'm not trying to convert you, I'm telling you my base for belief.  I'll take the small heap of evidence but more importantly, *faith that Christ would not abandon us for 1500 years vs your no evidence what-so-ever*.


*YOU PROVE IT!*



> Your division of the commandments is also one from the 1500s. Right?
> 
> And what good is googling "historic Christian icons" going to do? Do you think that something you found when you googled that proved that the view that the 2nd commandment prohibits worshiping an image of the one true God was some novelty that arose in the 1500's? If so, don't just tell me to google it, go ahead and share that proof with us. And while you're at it, why don't you get this discovery published. It would be big news in the field of the history of Christianity.

----------


## RJB

> I'll take the bait. How was it not nice?


Implying I didn't have a bible. But then again I'm more than a bit sarcastic.  If it was meant funny way, we're cool.

----------


## RJB

> RJB, let me get this straight.
> 
> Are you saying that idolatry is only worshiping images of false gods, and that worshiping images of the one true God is not idolatry?


(face palm)  We don't worship an image any more than you make love to a photo of your wife!

----------


## erowe1

> You tease us


I haven't teased anyone in this thread.




> for our small heap of evidence of Apostolic tradition


What evidence are you talking about. If you have some, I'd love to see it.




> yet I see ABSOLUTELY none from you


You see no evidence of what exactly? If there's anything I've said that you need evidence for, ask for the evidence and I'll provide it. I think I've backed up pretty much everything so far.




> I'm not trying to convert you, I'm telling you my base for belief.


Actually, you're not. I have asked you what you base your beliefs on, and you just repeat the same assertions without telling me why you believe them. Matthew5 and TER have been doing the same thing.




> faith that Christ would not abandon us for 1500 years


I can't even tell what this means. Have I said anything that implied that Christ abandoned anybody for 1500 years?

I don't think I've even mentioned anything about 1500 years in this thread. Every time that number comes up it keeps being other people trying to tell me where my beliefs come from, but never from me.




> *YOU PROVE IT!*


Prove what? If I said something that you want proof of, get more specific, I'll provide it.

----------


## erowe1

> (face palm)  We don't worship an image any more than you make love to a photo of your wife!


I never said you did. I have never once accused anyone in this thread of doing that.

I have seen others do it.

John of Damascus advocated doing it. But if you say that you don't do it, then fine. You don't.

----------


## RJB

Seriously.  Are you for real?




> I haven't teased anyone in this thread.
> 
> 
> What evidence are you talking about. If you have some, I'd love to see it.
> 
> 
> You see no evidence of what exactly? If there's anything I've said that you need evidence for, ask for the evidence and I'll provide it. I think I've backed up pretty much everything so far.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## erowe1

> Implying I didn't have a bible. But then again I'm more than a bit sarcastic.  If it was meant funny way, we're cool.


I said "if," which only implies that you might not.

----------


## erowe1

> Seriously.  Are you for real?


I'm not sure which part of that post you're asking about. But yes, it's all serious.

----------


## RJB

> RJB, let me get this straight.
> 
> Are you saying that idolatry is only worshiping images of false gods, and *that worshiping images of the one true God is not idolatry*?


That's the closest, but it was a question.  You are very good at the Socratic method.  I'm not sure if it gets to the truth, but it does rattle the opponent .




> I never said you did. I have never once accused anyone in this thread of doing that.I have seen others do it.
> 
> John of Damascus advocated doing it. But if you say that you don't do it, then fine. You don't.


We're fine, then.    I gotta go

----------


## RJB

> I'm not sure which part of that post you're asking about. But yes, it's all serious.


As I said in my last post, we're cool.  I'm in too good of a mood to continue arguing, although in a few hours I may prove myself a liar   Hopefully a goodnight to you all.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, that is idolatry and such actions were condemned by the Council of Trent.
> _Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images._


Okay.  While I see the distinction that the Council of Trent is attempting to make, I don't see that as a safe course of action.  I don't agree with Christians kissing, prostrating or otherwise showing adoration to statues because I believe it is too easy to slip into full on idolatry.  The risk greatly exceeds any potential reward IMO.

----------


## erowe1

Here's something more on the claim that Christians always numbered the commandments the way the Council of Trent does in the 1500's and that none divided the idolatry command from the worship of other gods until the Reformers.

It is clearly false. The following is from Origen's Homilies on Exodus, written in the early 200s.
http://books.google.com/books?id=X_m...ent%22&f=false

I don't think I can copy and paste from Google books, but when you click the link, you'll clearly see that he takes exactly the same the view that RJB was insisting no Christian held until the 1500's.

And, as mentioned before, this is also the older Jewish view, attested in Philo, and I believe Josephus as well.

I haven't found any official sources, but various things I've seen online have said that this has historically been the enumeration of the commands of the Greek Orthodox Church. And not only that, but also Eastern Rite Catholics use this enumeration, and supposedly have since long before the Reformation.

The enumeration used at Trent is very close to that of Augustine. However, even then it differs on where the first commandment begins.

So, in fact, the view that RJB said didn't come around until the 1500's is not only the oldest attested view (by Jews), but also the oldest attested view by Christians. And the view that he said was continuously held from the time of Moses on, actually doesn't appear until the 1500's.

How's that for irony?

----------


## erowe1

Here's more from Origen. I mentioned this point before, and no one challenged me on it, so I don't know if this proof is necessary. But if Christian worship of images in the manner that John of Damascus would come to advocate in the 700's existed at all in Origen's day, he knew nothing of it. He insists that the standard practice of Christians is never to use temples, altars, or images in their worship.

See chapters 62 and 63 of his _Contra Celsum_ here:
http://newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm

In case anyone might think that Origen is only talking about images of false gods, note that his enumeration of the 10 commandments mentioned above weighs against that.

In addition, notice that he is replying to Celsus, a nonchristian who wrote the work Origen is answering in the mid-second century. And it is Celsus who brings up the point. In Celsus's case, being a pagan opponent of Christianity, it is clear that he's not talking about Christians merely avoiding other gods, but avoiding all worship (in the outward sense that John of Damascus would later support) of images. Origen, in answering Celsus accepts Celsus's premise, and merely argues that the reason Christians avoid images in their worship is different than what Celsus assumed.

Therefore, we know for sure that the view propounded at that council in Nicea in the 700's was not one that they received through a tradition that was passed down orally since the apostles and was the standard view of the Church all those centuries. I'm not arguing from silence here.

----------


## erowe1

In addition to biblical passages that I've already presented, here's another strong piece of evidence that when God's Law given to the Israelites prohibited bowing down to images, it wasn't just images of false gods that it prohibited, but images that were ostensibly of the true God.

Deuteronomy 4:12-18



> 12 Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13 He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 14 And the Lord directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.
> 
> 15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.


Notice the use of the word "therefore," and how it logically connects the command not to make images to the fact that when the LORD spoke to them, they saw no form. The implication is that they are not being prohibited from any images whatsoever in any context, but they are prohibited from making images that supposedly represent the God whom they worship.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In addition to biblical passages that I've already presented, here's another strong piece of evidence that when God's Law given to the Israelites prohibited bowing down to images, it wasn't just images of false gods that it prohibited, but images that were ostensibly of the true God.
> 
> Deuteronomy 4:12-18
> 
> 
> Notice the use of the word "therefore," and how it logically connects the command not to make images to the fact that when the LORD spoke to them, they saw no form. The implication is that they are not being prohibited from any images whatsoever in any context, but they are prohibited from making images that supposedly represent the God whom they worship.


Do you happen to know what St Paul said about the subject?  Just curious...I don't. :/

----------


## erowe1

I've mentioned the Council at Elvira in AD 305-306 a few times as well. And nobody challenged my claims about that either. But in case anyone is unsure, the following is canon 36 from that council:



> 36.     Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.


http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Ca...viraCanons.htm

Does this canon of their council contradict an oral tradition that had been passed down from the apostles through the bishops who succeeded them? If so, how did these bishops with their own apostolic succession not know this?

----------


## erowe1

> Do you happen to know what St Paul said about the subject?  Just curious...I don't. :/


The only mentions of idolatry by Paul are in cases where it was pagan gods being worshiped, so those cases wouldn't be relevant to this question.

However, I don't think that Jews of Paul's day generally approved of making images of God. And the first Christians, including Paul, came from that background. So the idea of introducing a practice of bowing down to images of God, including God the Son, wouldn't have crossed his mind. When pagans converted to Christianity, they gave up their use of images in worship just by giving up their pagan Gods and adopting the Jewish and Christian one.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I just found this essay.  I hope you all enjoy it as well. 
http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...ings/icons.htm
History of Icons*Icons in the Early Church*



> Images and pictures of Christ and the saints were a part of earliest Christianity. Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with [COLOR=#9040AD !important]paintings





> of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups, and Christian statues have been discovered that date to the first century. According to the _Catholic Encyclopedia_, "The idea that the Church of the first centuries was in any way prejudiced against pictures and statues is the most impossible fiction." However, it is important to distinguish between the use of images and the reverence paid to them.







> With regard to the level of veneration, if any, paid to images in the early church, written sources are almost nonexistent. However, some conclusions can be made on the basis of what we do know. The early Christians' "monotheism, their insistence on the fact that they serve only one almighty unseen God, their horror of the idolatry of their neighbors, the torture and death that their martyrs suffered rather than lay a grain of incense before the statue of the emperor's numen are enough to convince us that they were not setting up rows of idols of their own. On the other hand, the place of honor they give to their symbols and pictures, the care with which they [COLOR=#9040AD !important]decorate them argue that they treated representations of their most sacred beliefs with at least decent reverence." 1[/COLOR]







> It seems that the tradition of showing respect and veneration to images developed gradually and as a natural consequence of cultural norms. "It would be natural that people who bowed to, kissed, incensed the imperial eagles and images of Caesar (with no suspicion of anything like idolatry), who paid elaborate reverence to an empty throne as his symbol, should give the same signs to the cross, the images of Christ, and the altar. To the Byzantine Christian of the fifth and sixth centuries prostrations, kisses, incense were the natural ways of showing honor to anyone; … he was accustomed to treat symbols in the same way, giving them relative honor that was obviously meant really for their prototypes. And so he carried his normal habits with him into church." 1
> Such veneration spread in some measure to Rome and the West, but their home was the court at Constantinople, and to this day the descendents of the subjects of the Eastern emperor place a much higher importance on the veneration of icons than their western (Catholic) counterparts.




By the eighth century, icons had become a major part of eastern devotion. The walls of churches were covered inside from [COLOR=#9040AD !important]floor to roof with icons, scenes from the Bible, allegorical groups. Icons were taken on journeys as a protection, they marched at the head of armies, and presided at the races in the hippodrome; they hung in a place of honor in every room, over every shop; they covered cups, garments, [COLOR=#9040AD !important]furniture[/COLOR], rings; wherever a possible space was found, it was filled with a picture of Christ, Mary, or a saint. Even more reverence was paid to icons believed to have miraculous origins, such as the image of Edessa (see Shroud of Turin).[/COLOR]




> That veneration of these icons gradually became excessive is attested to by several sources, including a (perhaps slightly exaggerated) [COLOR=#9040AD !important]letter from the iconoclastic Emperor Michael II (r. 820-9):[/COLOR]




[quote]They have removed the holy cross from the churches and replaced it by images before which they burn incense.... They sing psalms before these images, prostrate themselves before them, implore their help. Many dress up images in linen garments and choose them as godparents for their children. Others who become monks, forsaking the old tradition -- according to which the hair that is cut off is received by some distinguished person -- let it fall into the hands of some image. Some priests scrape the [COLOR=#9040AD !important]paint off images, mix it with the consecrated bread and wine and give it to the faithful. Others place the body of the Lord in the hands of images from which it is taken by the communicants. Others again, despising the churches, celebrate Divine [COLOR=#9040AD !important]Service[/COLOR] in private houses, using an image as an altar (Mansi, XIV, 417-22).[/COLOR] [quote]




> Meanwhile, the western church remained fairly moderate on the issue. Pope Gregory the Great (d. 602) explained[COLOR=#9040AD !important]the general western view of images as "books for the ignorant" in a letter to an eastern Iconoclastic bishop:[/COLOR]







> Not without reason has antiquity allowed the stories of saints to be painted in holy places. And we indeed entirely praise thee for not allowing them to be adored, but we blame thee for breaking them. For it is one thing to adore an image, it is quite another thing to learn from the appearance of a picture what we must adore. What books are to those who can read, that is a picture to the ignorant who look at it; in a picture even the unlearned may see what example they should follow; in a picture they who know no [COLOR=#9040AD !important]letters may yet read.[/COLOR]







> *The Iconoclastic Controversy*
> Although there was intermittent opposition to the veneration of images in the first seven centuries of the church, the issue first became a major point of controversy in the eighth century. The iconoclastic controversy began in earnest under Emperor Leo III (r. 716-41), a strong-willed man who opposed the veneration of images and began to persecute those who did so. Leo's iconoclastic position may have been influenced by Khalifa Omar II (717-20), who was unsuccessful in trying to convert the emperor to Islam but probably convinced him that pictures and images are idols, but he was also convinced of this by Christian opponents of icons who gained his ear.







> In 726 AD, Leo III published an edict declaring images to be idols, forbidden by Exodus 20:4-5. He commanded that all such images in churches be destroyed, and the soldiers immediately began to carry out his orders throughout the empire. There was a famous picture of Christ, called Christos antiphonetes, over the [COLOR=#9040AD !important]gate of the palace at Constantinople, the destruction of which provoked a serious riot among the people.[/COLOR]
> Germanus, the patriarch of Constantinople, protested against the edict and appealed to the pope (729). But the emperor deposed him as a traitor (730) and had Anastasius (730-54), a willing instrument of the government, appointed in his place. The most steadfast opponents of the Iconoclasts throughout this story were the monks. It is true that there were some who took the side of the emperor but as a body, eastern monasticism was steadfastly loyal to the old custom of the Church. Leo therefore joined with his iconoclasm a fierce persecution of monasteries and eventually tried to suppress monasticism altogether.
> Pope Gregory II (r. 713-31) responded to the appeal of the deposed patriarch with a long defense of images. He explains the difference between them and idols, with some surprise that Leo does not already understand the distinction. But Leo remained steadfast and the persecution continued to rage in the East. Monasteries were destroyed and monks were put to death, tortured, or banished. The Iconoclasts began to apply their principle to relics also, to break open shrines and burn the bodies of saints buried in churches.







> At the same time, St. John of Damascus (d. 754), safe from the emperor's anger under the rule of the Khalifa was writing at the monastery of St. Saba his famous apologies "against those who destroy the holy icons." In the West, at Rome, Ravenna, and Naples, the people rose against the emperor's law.
> In 731, Pope Gregory II was succeeded by Gregory III, who in that same year held a synod of 93 bishops at St. Peter's. All persons who broke, defiled, or took images of Christ, of His Mother, the Apostles or other saints were declared excommunicate. Leo then sent a fleet to Italy to punish the pope but it was wrecked and dispersed by a storm. Meanwhile every kind of calamity afflicted the empire; earthquakes, pestilence, and famine devastated the provinces while the Muslims continued their victorious career and conquered further territory.







> Leo III died in June, 741, in the midst of these troubles, without having changed policy. His work was carried on by his son Constantine V (Copronymus, 741-775), who became an even greater persecutor of image-worshippers than had been his father. In 754 Constantine, taking up his father's original idea summoned a great synod at Constantinople that was to count as the Seventh General Council. About 340 bishops attended, although the most important sees refused to sent representatives to the puppet council. The bishops at the synod servilely agreed to all Constantine's demands. They decreed that images of Christ are either Monophysite or Nestorian, for -- since it is impossible to represent His Divinity -- they either confound or divorce His two natures. A special curse was pronounced against three chief defenders of images -- Germanus, the former Patriarch of Constantinople, John of Damascus, and a monk, George of Cyprus.







> The Emperor Constantine V died in 775. His son Leo IV (775-80), although he did not repeal the Iconoclast law was much milder in enforcing them. He allowed the exiled monks to come back, tolerated at least the intercession of saints and tried to reconcile all parties. When Leo IV died, the Empress Irene was regent for her son Constantine VI (780-97), who was nine years old when his father died. She immediately set about undoing the work of the Iconoclast emperors. Pictures and relics were restored to the churches; monasteries were reopened.







> Finally, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Empress Irene sent an embassy to Pope Adrian I (772-95) acknowledging his primacy and begging him to come himself, or at least to send legates to a council that should undo the work of the Iconoclast synod of 754. The petition was granted, and about 300 bishops attended a council in Nicea, the site of the first ecumenical council, from 24 September to 23 October, 787.







> The Second Council of Nicea confirmed the use of icons, condemned the Iconoclast leaders, and in opposition to the formula of the Iconoclast synod, declared of Germanus, John Damascene and George of Cyprus: "The Trinity has made these three glorious."
> 
> Twenty-seven years after this council, iconoclasm broke out again. The icons were again restored in 842, after which the iconoclastic movement gradually died out in the east. Icons continue to be a major part of Orthodox worship and devotion to this day. The Catholic Church continues to venerate images as well, though such images are not as central in the West as they are in the East. The Protestant Reformers generally opposed the use of icons, and icons continue to be generally avoided by most Protestants today.


(contd. at link)

----------


## eduardo89

HB you need to learn how to reformat copy pastas on the forum!!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> HB you need to learn how to reformat copy pastas on the forum!!


Indeed! :/  Got a link explaining the quick n' easy way?  I sometimes break and indent paragraphs, but sometimes (as above) I feel rather lazy about it. :/

----------


## eduardo89

> Indeed! :/  Got a link explaining the quick n' easy way?  I sometimes break and indent paragraphs, but sometimes (as above) I feel rather lazy about it. :/


Put the title in bold, put the article text inside quotes and put spaces between the paragraphs. That should help make it readable.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Put the title in bold, put the article text inside quotes and put spaces between the paragraphs. That should help make it readable.


Спасибо большой! ~hugs~

----------


## erowe1

> Спасибо большой! ~hugs~


My Russian is shaky. Did you just call him a spaz?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My Russian is shaky. Did you just call him a spaz?


lolz   No, that means "thank you very much" (lit. "big thank you").

----------


## TER



----------


## TER



----------


## Matthew5

> I've mentioned the Council at Elvira in AD 305-306 a few times as well. And nobody challenged my claims about that either. But in case anyone is unsure, the following is canon 36 from that council:
> 
> http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Ca...viraCanons.htm



From your own link, no less. 




> The textual history of these canons is  complicated.  Hamilton Hess discusses the problems of the textual  transmission of the canons in The Early Development of Canon Law and the  Council of Serdica (Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford: 2002) 40-42.   He summarizes the research of Samuel Laeuchli (who prints the Latin text and  translates it), Sexuality and Power:  The Emergence of Canon Law at the  Synod of Elvira (Philadelphia: 1972) and of Maurice Meigne, "Concile  ou collection d'Elvire," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique  70 (1975) 361-387.  Meigne argues that *the Council of Elvira issued* *only  the first 21 canons;* the other canons were added to the "collection" later,  probably taken from other Iberian councils.



Very little is even known about this council, much less any other subsequent councils, so I wouldn't weight it as much as an Ecumenical Council. Besides, there's a ton other stuff that the Ecumenical Councils corrected here, especially views on celibacy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Found something new on this subject: http://ourlifeinchrist.com/?page_id=609
Icons in the Orthodox Faith – Part 1
The Orthodox Understanding of Icons
In this discussion we will deal with the definition of icons, the OT and NT reasons for icons, the use of icons in the Christian’s life.
One of the things that strikes people when the walk into an Orthodox Church is the presence of icons, or images, of Christ, Mary, the Saints etc. in the Church. One will notice that there are no statues or 3 dimensional images in the Church. This is because icons are not intended to be “realistic representations” of the persons portrayed, but spiritual depictions. There are many “rules” regarding iconography and these are intended to teach the viewer about the spiritual life and our salvation in Christ. Iconography is purposely painted to NOT look “realistic”. “There is a vital difference between an image and its prototype”, John of Damascus explained: “An image is a likeness, a model, or a figure of something, showing in itself what it depicts. An image is not always like its prototype in every way. For the image is one thing and the thing depicted is another.” Icons are not primarily historical but spiritual portrayals. An icon of the Resurrection, in which Adam and Eve are rescued from the grave, is not intended to paint an exact physical likeness of Adam and Eve nor an historical event. Rather the icon seeks to communicate spiritual and theological truths about the Resurrection: all of us sinners, like Adam and Eve, share in Christ’s victory over the grave. (But the rubrics of iconography is another topic!)
The other, and more disconcerting thing to most Protestant visitors, is the practice of Orthodox Christians bowing before the icons and kissing them. To the modern Protestant, this is idolatry.
But we must look at the Scriptures and determine if this is idolatry or a proper practice for the Christian. The Scriptures will give us the foundations for how both the Jews from which Christianity came, and the early Church Fathers understood images, Christ as God incarnate, and the distinction between honor or veneration and worship.
*What Icons are NOT*
The issue begins with Scripture and the second commandment:
Exodus 20:4 You shall not make a graven image of anything that is in heaven above, in the earth or in the water, nor shall you bow down to worship them.
So, are images a violation of the Second Commandment?
What God actually forbade was the making of graven images of anything in heaven or earth, for the purpose of worshipping them. This is the actual command:
_You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments._ (Exodus 20:4,5).
If this passage prohibits any kind of pictures of the incarnate Christ, or of angels or our heroes in the Faith, then we must also abandon all of our children’s Sunday school materials, anything that depicts Bible stories, and we need to destroy our photos of our families, posters of landscapes, nor can we take any vacation pictures and email them to friends. Those are all images of things in the heaven or earth or water. In reality, of course, no one but the Muslims and some VERY fundamentalist Christians really believe that God meant to prohibit all images of anything in heaven or earth; it’s the worshipping of images that He forbids.

*The Temple and the Jews*
The Jews received the second commandment and in the same historical timeframe God also commanded the building of the tabernacle and its furnishings. We are all familiar with the infamous golden calf that Aaron set up while Moses was receiving the 10 commandments. One MIGHT conclude that ANY image of a bull would be absolutely forbidden in God’s tabernacle.
But the image of a bull was set up in the Temple — _by God’s command and with God’s approval!_ Here are a couple of examples:
“And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the Ark; and in the Ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the Ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” (Ex. 25:18, see also Ex. 26:1, I Kings 6:29, Ezek. 41:25)1 Kings 7:25 tells about the brazen sea – the huge 15-foot diameter basin in the courts of the Temple. It was made with graven images of twelve bulls surrounding the sea. This should tell us, if nothing else, that God is NOT displeased by the presence of pictorial representations in His holy places of worship. In fact, these were even graven images identical to those the Israelites periodically worshipped! Apparently God knows the difference between pagan worship and true worship even though similar artifacts might be present in both.
If you read the commands of God regarding the building of the Tabernacle, those weren’t the only graven images. You’ll also find:
Two fifteen-foot-tall cherubim in the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:23-28)
All the Temple’s inside walls were covered with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. (1 Kings 6:29)
The doors of the sanctuary and of the inner sanctuary were carved gold-overlaid images of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers (1 Kings 6:32,34)
On the Temple carts, images of bulls and lions. (1 Kings 7:29,36)
and of course the two cherubs on top of the Ark itself!
God also commanded the making of icons, or images for spiritual purposes. He commanded Moses to display an icon in Numbers 21:8,9 – God healed the Israelites from snakebite when they looked to the icon of the snake. It was not until a later generation, when the people had named this icon Nehushtan and worshipped it as a god, that it was necessary to destroy it (2 Kings 18:4). At another time, God specifically commanded Ezekiel to paint an icon of the city of Jerusalem and to treat the icon as a symbol of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1ff).
So it is clear that the Jews NEVER were iconoclasts or without images in their worship. The New Testament-era Jews had no qualms about lavishly decorating their synagogues with images of biblical figures. In Dura Europa, located in modern Syria, a second century synagogue was unearthed, and it was covered with wall-paintings that were in excellent condition.
It is clear FROM SCRIPTURE that the second commandment DOES NOT apply to ALL images and their presence in the context of a place of worship.
*Modern Icons in Protestantism*
Most Protestant Christians would be scandalized if someone mistreated or desecrated a Bible or their Lord’s Supper by spitting on it, or treating it in a disrespectful way because it “represents” something of God even though technically most would regard the Bible as paper and ink and the Lord’s Supper as crackers and juice. This “honor or veneration” of material objects is not limited to religious articles. Most people show respect for the Flag, pictures of family (anyone would be scandalized if someone spit on a picture of their mother), historical places/things, and sacred art. These are “icons” or representations of something that we in fact regard with a degree of “sacredness” worthy of showing some form of respect for.
Aside from the Bible and the Lord’s Supper which are “icons” representing something greater than the material objects themselves, many Protestant Churches will have a depiction of the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove somewhere in their sanctuaries. The question we have to ask is: Is the Holy Spirit God? Well, of course He is. If we can depict the Holy Spirit, then why not Christ who is also God? If Christ, then why not the saints who are in the image of Christ?
This leads us to the next point, which is the biblical basis for icons.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Intro

Sayings of the Fathers: St. Macarius the Great of Egypt – again, on humility. Macarius was a 4th century monk, recluse (he lived alone in the desert after the fashion of St. Anthony) and a wonderworker who emphasized the need to be humble and not judge anyone – even the very worst of sinners.This is the mark of Christianity–however much a man toils, and however many righteous deeds he performs, to feel that he has done nothing, and in fasting to say, “This is not fasting,” and in praying, “This is not prayer,” and in perseverance at prayer, “I have shown no perseverance; I am only just beginning to practice and to take pains”; and even if he is righteous before God, he should say, “I am not righteous, not I; I do not take pains, but only make a beginning every day.”
Discussion/commentsSummary of last week – Introduction to Icons
Icons are a unique hallmark of the Orthodox Faith, you’ll see them in the Church and in Orthodox Christian homes, cars, portable – and we venerate, kiss them, carry them in processions – so we need to have a scriptural defense for the presence of icons in our lives and in our worshipIn Exodus God commands us not to make any “graven image” of Him who is invisible. The Israelites had a knack of worshiping idols and God wanted to prevent this – although we know that Jewish history is filled with examples of how they failed to obey Him.We mentioned that God however, did permit and even instructed the Jews to create images of created things in heaven and earth – the cherubim, plants and animals (bulls) for the His tabernacle and His temple. So not all images were forbidden, but depictions of YAWEH Himself were forbidden. We can conclude from this and other Scriptures that God’s creation is good and that man can actually learn something about God by contemplating the creation.
We also mentioned that, even in non-Orthodox Churches, certain objects, and images are used as religious symbols and are indeed given honor: Bibles, the Cross, the Dove (Holy Spirit), the communion bread and wine. Christians are zealous to prevent these objects and symbols from being desecrated or profaned by the unbeliever because of what they represent. This is especially true of the written Word of Scripture – because all true Christians believe that the Scripture is indeed a inspired, yet graven image of truth about God. But we would affirm with St. Basil the truth that:
“What the word transmits through the ear, that painting silently shows through the image.

The Image or Icon of God
While man was forbidden to create an image of the invisible God for worship, we must remember that Man was created in the image of God – Adam and Eve are together clearly the Icon of God. As a matter of fact, the Church teaches that all human beings are the icon of God
“Then God said, let us make man in our image (icon), after our likeness…so God created man in his own image.” (Icon) (Genesis 1:26 and 27)The Icon of God has been marred however, in that Adam and Eve sinned. Fallen, sinful Man is still in the image of God, but tragically, it is not the original image. IN the OT, God is dealing with sinful man prior to the “Fullness of Time” – but when the time comes - Christmas!The Incarnation – The eternal Mystery of God is realized when God himself makes Himself into a human being, in order to show us the original image and save us so that we can become what we were intended to be. Nearly everything the Church does and says flows from this fact: Christ IS the image of the Father. He is the perfect Icon of God. And God is Human.
Christ is the icon of God: ”He is the image (icon) of the unseen God.” (Col. 1:15)“He is the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature.” (Hebrews 1:3).“Philip said, ‘Lord, let see us the Father and then we shall be satisfied’ To have seen me is to have seen the Father, so how can you say, let us see the Father.” (John 14:8-11)Affirming the Incarnation – affirming that the God-Man Jesus Christ is the perfect icon of God the Father, is perhaps the primary litmus test of Orthodox Christianity.
1 John 4:2,3 – By this you know the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God – this is the spirit of Antichrist…In the Orthodox Church, the Icon is the celebration of the Incarnation and a witness against the Antichrist. In short, to the same degree that God, in the second commandment, emphatically prohibited the Jews from any futile attempt to create a material or visual likeness of Himself, the Orthodox Church, by the Holy Spirit, now encourages the creation, presence and veneration of icons as a celebration and testimony to God’s incarnation as material man.This honor is also extended to include the commemoration of His image and likeness in the heroic men and women of the Church, the Saints, the prototypes of His sanctification and holiness unto salvation. St John of Damascus wrote:”If you make an image of Christ, and not of the saints, it is evident that you do not forbid images, but refuse to honour the saints. You are not waging war against images but against the saints themselves.”(The Defence of Icons)The Struggle for Truth in the Orthodox Church
Icons were a subject of controversy for many centuries following Christ’s Ascension. Not everyone – not even all the Church Fathers, felt that painting icons and incorporating them into the life and worship of the Church was the right thing to do.There are two views of the origin of icons; the non Orthodox, or critical view sees them as the Hellenising and paganising of Christianity, which is dated from about the 4th century. Critics of Icons point to church fathers who condemned images; such as Origen (186-255), Tertullian (160-240), Eusebius (265-399) and Clement of Alexandria (150-216). They also point to the Council of Elvira, in Spain 300-303 which forbade the use of images in worship, but that was local to Spain and Southern Europe, and not considered an ecumenical council of the whole Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church defends the early origin of icons by claiming many of these people did not remain Orthodox and therefore do not represent the teachings of the Church.We do know that by the 4th century icons were used to aid the teaching of theology and to combat heresy. Alpha and Omega (A W ) appeared on icons of Christ about this time in order to combat Arianism. Arianism had taught that Christ was created before the creation of anything else. The symbols are derived from The Book of Revelation 22:13Many of the Greatest of the Church Fathers including Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory and many others, affirmed the role of icons in the Church (quotes?)The Quinisext Council is also known as the Trullan Council, or Council in Trullo or the 5th and 6th ecumenical councils, and marks the beginning of icon theology. The most important ruling was canon 82. It forbade the use of symbolic representations of Christ. For the first time the connection was made between images of Christ and his incarnation. The theme of the incarnation was to become the very foundation of all icon theology. Canon 82 reads:
“We decreed that henceforth Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the ancient form of the lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are made to remember his life in the flesh.”
The Council decreed that lambs or fish or other things in creation should no longer be used as symbols to represent Christ. The reason for banning images of Christ as a lamb, etc., was because the period of Old Testament pre-figurations of Christ is now over, we have had the full revelation of God in human form.The Iconoclasts and the Seventh Ecumenical Council
The issue of icons in the Church all came to a head in the early mid 8th Century. Because of a variety of social, political and religious forces at work in the Byzantine, Islamic and European nations, Icons were banned and destroyed, people were persecuted and killed, and for over 100 years the entire (Christian) civilized world wrestled with the question of icons. (More Detail?)
Most of the Old Testament Scriptures we have referenced and mentioned were used to argue the iconoclast position: Exodus20, Deuteronomy 21Instrumental in the defense of the use of Icons during this period was St. John of Damascus a sampling of his writings:
“From the time that God the Word became flesh He is as we are in everything except sin, and of our nature, without confusion. He has deified our flesh forever, and we are in very deed sanctified through His Godhead and the union of His flesh with it.”“Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God’s body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul.”“If we made an image of the invisible God, [59] we should in truth do wrong. For it is impossible to make a statue of one who is without body, invisible, boundless, and formless. Again, if we made statues of men, and held them to be gods, worshipping them as such, we should be most impious. But we do neither. For in making the image of God, who became incarnate and visible on earth, a man amongst men through His unspeakable goodness, taking upon Him shape and form and flesh, we are not misled. We long to see what He was like. As the divine apostle says, “We see now in a glass, darkly.” (I Cor. 13.12) The image, too, is a dark glass, according to the denseness of our bodies. The mind, in much travail, cannot rid itself of bodily things. Shame upon you, wicked devil, for grudging us the sight of our Lord’s likeness and our sanctification through it. You would not have us gaze at His saving sufferings nor wonder at His condescension, neither contemplate His miracles nor praise His almighty power. You grudge the saints the honour God gives to them. You would not have us see their glory put on record, nor allow us to become imitators of their fortitude and faith. We will not obey your suggestions, wicked and man-hating devil.”

----------


## TER

Nang, could you kindly please place your concerns/questions/comments about the Christian use of images here in this thread so as not to distract other threads.  It would good of you to read through this thread as well since most of your concerns have already been answered here.  Thank you!

----------


## erowe1

> From your own link, no less. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little is even known about this council, much less any other subsequent councils, so I wouldn't weight it as much as an Ecumenical Council. Besides, there's a ton other stuff that the Ecumenical Councils corrected here, especially views on celibacy.


There's really no such thing as an "ecumenical council." All church councils that have ever happened have only ever represented subsets of the entire body of Christ. Some have represented larger swaths of Christendom than others. But none have ever been truly ecumenical. And none ever have had the authority to speak on behalf of anyone other than those specific people who attended them and those who subjected themselves to their authority.

My point in mentioning the Council of Elvira was not to appeal to it as an authoritative council, but just for historical evidence. Obviously it is not the case that the later reverence for icons that you see in the 8th century and later was not so widespread back in the 4th century, including among Christian bishops who had as much claim to apostolic succession as those who attended the much later so-called "ecumenical" councils. If Meigne is correct that the 36th canon at the link I provided is from an even later time than the late 4th century, then that only pushes back the reverence for icons that much later.

What this all proves is that the views of the 2nd Council of Nicea aren't the result of traditions that were passed down orally through all the generations going back to the apostles. They were much later innovations.

----------


## Nang

> Nang, could you kindly please place your concerns/questions/comments about the Christian use of images here in this thread so as not to distract other threads.


No, thank you.  You will not dictate to me how or where I am allowed to defend my faith and the Holy Scriptures.




> It would good of you to read through this thread as well since most of your concerns have already been answered here.  Thank you!


It would be better for you to repent of leading others into idolatry and false teaching . . . but I have little hope of that.  You appear entrenched in your darkness.

----------


## TER

> My attitude towards bibles, is devotion to their content.  The written Words of God.  Matthew 4:4, Deut. 8:3
> 
> The word of God, written by the finger of God upon tablets of stone, was carried in the Ark of God, which was the seat of worship in the holiest of holies.  The word of God; the Logos of God; came in flesh as the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Honoring the bible is to honor Him.  Exemplifying the power of the content of the bible, is acknowledging the saving power of God.
> 
> All of this is a far cry from being led into idolatry and worshiping works from the hands and minds of mere men.


A few points:

The Scriptures are a written icon the same way drawn icons are written.  One is made by the hands of humans into words, the other by the hands of humans into pictures.  

Secondly, God did not write the upon the tablets of stone which was then carried in the Ark.  If you recall, the Moses smashed that set of tablets on account of the idolatry of the people.  Perhaps this was to protect them from worshiping the tablets the same way some modern Christians worship the Scriptures today.

Thirdly, it is idolatry to place the Scriptures in the same league with the true Word of God Who is Christ.  The Scriptures are needful, necessary, indeed indispensable in learning the faith (thankfully we live in time where we can easily obtain them, because for most of history having one was indeed a luxury).  But the Scriptures do not save us, Christ saves us.  And we are not called to become pages of a book, but members of the Church Which is His Body.

----------


## erowe1

> Thirdly, it is idolatry to place the Scriptures in the same league with the true Word of God Who is Christ.


Take a look at this list and notice how often the biblical prophets referred to their words as the Word of the Lord. Were they committing idolatry?
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...tartnumber=246

----------


## TER

> Take a look at this list and notice how often the biblical prophets referred to their words as the Word of the Lord. Were they committing idolatry?
> http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...tartnumber=246


The Righteous before the Incarnation had the Word of God to be the Law, and the communications of God to them was among the greatest revelation given to them by God.  

But we learn in the Gospel of St. John that Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the Logos of the Pre-eternal Father.  Christ came to reveal to us the Word of God Who is He Himself.  

So while the Righteous of the Old Covenant saw in shades and in parts, those who are in the New Covenant have found the true Word of God which is not a book but the Incarnate Son of God.

----------


## Nang

> A few points:
> 
> The Scriptures are a written icon the same way drawn icons are written.  One is made by the hands of humans into words, the other by the hands of humans into pictures.  
> 
> Secondly, God did not write the upon the tablets of stone which was then carried in the Ark.  If you recall, the Moses smashed that set of tablets on account of the idolatry of the people.  Perhaps this was to protect them from worshiping the tablets the same way some modern Christians worship the Scriptures today.


Moses made a second set.  Learn the entire account as recorded in Exodus 32:6-33:9  




> Thirdly, it is idolatry to place the Scriptures in the same league with the true Word of God Who is Christ.


It is worship of Jesus Christ to honor and live by His Word.





> The Scriptures are needful, necessary, indeed indispensable in learning the faith (thankfully we live in time where we can easily obtain them, because for most of history having one was indeed a luxury).  But *the Scriptures do not save us, Christ saves us.*  And we are not called to become pages of a book, but members of the Church Which is His Body.


Christ saves and calls His elect church through the preaching of *His* word:

It is the gospel message that is the power of salvation, and the gospel is the inspired Word of God.   II Timothy 3:16-17, Romans 10:8-17, Isaiah 29:18; 55:3; James 1:8

----------


## TER

> Moses made a second set.  Learn the entire account as recorded in Exodus 32:6-33:9


Yes, and those are the ones which were placed in the Ark.  The ones which God wrote down were smashed.  I think you are mistaken.  Since that time, God has used men as chosen vessels to use images and symbols (which include letters and words) to reveal Himself to man.




> It is worship of Jesus Christ to honor and live by His Word.


To live by His word is to follow His commandments, which include to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, amongst other things.  But I would say the same thing, that it is worship of God to honor those who have been His chosen vessels of the Holy Spirit in His saints.  





> Christ saves and calls His elect church through the preaching of *His* word:


Christ saves us because He took our human nature and united it with His divine nature.  Our salvation comes in joining with this divine nature by following His commandments and obtaining the Spirit of God within us, all by His grace.  This is greatly assisted by reading and studying the Scriptures, but unfortuatnely, simply reading the Scriptures apart from the wisdom of the Church (which is the pillar and ground for the truth) can lead to errors.  That is why Christ established His Church so that they might provide the faithful the correct interpretation and carry down the correct glory and worship of the Holy Trinity.

----------


## erowe1

> The Righteous before the Incarnation had the Word of God to be the Law, and the communications of God to them was among the greatest revelation given to them by God.


After the incarnation too.



> 1 Thessalonians 2:13
> 
> For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, and those are the ones which were placed in the Ark.  The ones which God wrote down were smashed.  I think you are mistaken.


*"And the Lord said to Moses, 'Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.'"  Exodus 34:1
*










> simply reading the Scriptures apart from the wisdom of the Church (which is the pillar and ground for the truth) can lead to errors.  That is why Christ established His Church so that they might provide the faithful the correct interpretation and carry down the correct glory and worship of the Holy Trinity.


You have proven that your "Church" is fallible by your ignorance shown above, and frankly your teaching is not to be trusted, for obviously you did not go to the scriptures in your zeal to replace the scriptures.  Your embarrassment and your loss.

It is the *Holy Spirit who has the sole authority* and is commissioned to lead all the sons of God into *all truth (John 16:13),* not any church made up of fallible men.

You and your church cannot come close to taking His place . . .

----------


## TER

> After the incarnation too.


Yes erowe, I am not arguing that the message of God's revelation cannot be called the word of God.  The Church Fathers call it just the same.  But there is a distinction between the Logos of God (which some have translated *poorly* to mean the 'word' of God) and the Scriptures or oral and written traditions of God's revelation to man.  The Logos is to be worshiped, not the Holy Scriptures (or Word of God) if you wish.  The Logos saves us, and not the Holy Scriptures.  Bibliolotry is indeed idolatry.

----------


## moostraks

> No, thank you.  You will not dictate to me how or where I am allowed to defend my faith and the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be better for you to repent of leading others into idolatry and false teaching . . . but I have little hope of that.  You appear entrenched in your darkness.





> Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...age-Guidelines

The site operates by a clear set of rules that you should comply with or create your own forum from which you may have your own set of rules to operate by. If you have an issue with icons or images being used then it is your option to either reopen an old thread on the subject or create one making this the topic of discussion. Spamming every thread not on topic to the subject to prove your point is immature and disruptive to conversation. You should respect the rules put forth by the owner of the site. Most of us are grateful for this site and do not need newcomers to ruin the forum by creating unnecessary drama.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes erowe, I am not arguing that the message of God's revelation cannot be called the word of God.  The Church Fathers call it just the same.  But there is a distinction between the Logos of God (which some have translated *poorly* to mean the 'word' of God) and the Scriptures or oral and written traditions of God's revelation to man.  The Logos is to be worshiped, not the Holy Scriptures (or Word of God) if you wish.  The Logos saves us, and not the Holy Scriptures.  Bibliolotry is indeed idolatry.


I agree with this. Have you seen anyone disagree?

----------


## TER

> [B]"And the Lord said to Moses, 'Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.'"  Exodus 34:1


*Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”  Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34:27-28* 

So you see Nang, Moses wrote them.

----------


## Nang

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...age-Guidelines
> 
> The site operates by a clear set of rules that you should comply with or create your own forum from which you may have your own set of rules to operate by. If you have an issue with icons or images being used then it is your option to either reopen an old thread on the subject or create one making this the topic of discussion. Spamming every thread not on topic to the subject to prove your point is immature and disruptive to conversation. You should respect the rules put forth by the owner of the site. Most of us are grateful for this site and do not need newcomers to ruin the forum by creating unnecessary drama.


Pay attention:

TER spammed a thread to give me his mandate about posting on another, instead of answering my complaint within context.

And why don't you pass this good advice on to Terry1, who is a true violator of this rule.

----------


## TER

> I agree with this. Have you seen anyone disagree?


I don't know erowe, it seems to me some have this idea that the Word of God (the Bible) saves us, or they make the Scriptures to be in the perfection of the Logos of God.  The Scriptures are inerrant in the message they convey, in the original language, and in the revelation God willed to be written.  This is the orthodox faith.  But inerrancy does not equate to perfection, especially in light of the Incarnation where the only Perfection in the world has been manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ.  

I think _some_ modern Protestant and adherents of Sola Scriptura do come awfully close to Bibliotray.  And especially when they put the Bible over the Church.  The Church created the Bible.  The Church interprets the Bible.  The Bible was made for the Church, not the Church was made for the Bible.

----------


## Nang

> *Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”  Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34:27-28* 
> 
> So you see Nang, Moses wrote them.


The Ten Commandments were rewritten by God the second time.  Exodus 34:1

 "These words" that Moses wrote were the words of covenant, the additional testimony, recorded in Exodus 34:10-28. 

All of which came by inspiration and direction of God Himself.  II Timothy 3:16

I think it is shameful for you to attempt to denigrate the written Word of God, and elevate manmade traditions over and above Holy Scripture.

----------


## TER

> The Ten Commandments were rewritten by God the second time.  Exodus 34:1
> 
>  "These words" that Moses wrote were the words of covenant, the additional testimony, recorded in Exodus 34:10-28. 
> 
> All of which came by inspiration and direction of God Himself.  II Timothy 3:16
> 
> I think it is shameful for you to attempt to denigrate the written Word of God, and elevate manmade traditions over and above Holy Scripture.


I think you are mistaken.  Moses wrote them all down.  God wrote them through Moses.

----------


## erowe1

> *Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”  Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34:27-28* 
> 
> So you see Nang, Moses wrote them.


Your own quote doesn't say that Moses wrote on the stone tablets. It says "he" did it. What is the antecedent of the pronoun?

The command for Moses to write pertains to the words that God told him to write in the previous verses in Exodus 34.

----------


## moostraks

> Pay attention:
> 
> TER spammed a thread to give me his mandate about posting on another, instead of answering my complaint within context.
> 
> And why don't you pass this good advice on to Terry1, who is a true violator of this rule.


I am paying attention and your attitude for a newcomer needs to be checked at the door. You are spamming threads such as the one on the Christian Creed because you have a problem with icons. This is why TER brought the post here to address it, to which you have acted like you shall do as you please, and we all got the memo you think you can act however you please and we will suck it up because you are elderly. What you seem to be forgetting is most of us have been here for some time and really appreciate this site and what the owners put up with in order to keep it running. So you are are being informed of site rules as a courtesy and because us old timers do not need you new folks to ruin things for the rest of us. You do not own this site and if you continue to spam threads then you will likely be flagged for it. If you have a problem with Terry, then deal with it through the appropriate channels. Flag the posts.

----------


## Nang

> I don't know erowe, it seems to me some have this idea that the Word of God (the Bible) saves us, or they make the Scriptures to be in the perfection of the Logos of God.  The Scriptures are inerrant in the message they convey, in the original language, and in the revelation God willed to be written.  This is the orthodox faith.  But inerrancy does not equate to perfection, especially in light of the Incarnation where the only Perfection in the world has been manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ.  
> 
> I think _some_ modern Protestant and adherents of Sola Scriptura do come awfully close to Bibliotray.  And especially when they put the Bible over the Church.  The Church created the Bible.  The Church interprets the Bible.  The Bible was made for the Church, not the Church was made for the Bible.


Idolizing my bible, would be worshipping the leather binding and pages, while prostrate on my face, instead of reading it.

----------


## moostraks

> Your own quote doesn't say that Moses wrote on the stone tablets. It says "he" did it. What is the antecedent of the pronoun?
> 
> The command for Moses to write pertains to the words that God told him to write in the previous verses.


R U kidding?

----------


## Terry1

> Pay attention:
> 
> TER spammed a thread to give me his mandate about posting on another, instead of answering my complaint within context.
> 
> And why don't you pass this good advice on to Terry1, who is a true violator of this rule.


Oh come on now Nang, you know you've violated the rules since day 1 that was all of what now---a couple of weeks ago?  You're just used to running wild saying anything you please somewhere else and probably in some Calvinist forum for dummies.

----------


## erowe1

> R U kidding?


No.

I understand the issue in Exodus 34, how it's supposedly some alternate 10 commandments that contradict the more famous version that's recounted in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy. But before we jump to the conclusion that there's a contradiction there, we should take a step back and carefully read what it does and doesn't say. God does tell Moses to write those commands that he gives in Exodus 34:10-26. But he doesn't clearly call those the 10 commandments. And the text doesn't say that they are the same ones that "he" wrote on the tablets, which are called the 10 commandments, nor that Moses was the one who wrote on the tablets.

I take it to mean that, in addition to these commands in Exodus 34, which Moses wrote, which are not the 10 commandments, there still were the 10 commandments themselves. And it's the actual 10 commandments which were written on the stone tablets, and that, just as Deuteronomy says, it was God who wrote them.

----------


## TER

> Idolizing my bible, would be worshipping the leather binding and pages, while prostrate on my face, instead of reading it.


Idolizing an icon would be worshiping the wood and paint.  And if I prostate myself before it, it is not the icon I am worshiping, but the One who's image is on it.  The icon just helps me orient my prayers just like the Scriptures help me orient my prayers.

----------


## Nang

> Idolizing an icon would be worshiping the wood and paint.  And if I prostate myself before it, it is not the icon I am worshiping, but the One who's image is on it.  The icon just helps me orient my prayers just like the Scriptures help me orient my prayers.



That is worshipping by sight, not by faith.  That is why it is a forbidden practice.

----------


## TER

> That is worshipping by sight, not by faith.  That is why it is a forbidden practice.


Christ came into the flesh.  Worshipping by sight He Who has made Himself seen is not forbidden.  Our worship in an Incarnate God Who has sanctified human flesh and human nature involves all of our senses.  We are not dualists, nor Gnostics.  We are Christians who burn incense, place images, psalm hymns, and eat of the Holy Eucharist.

----------


## moostraks

> No.
> 
> I understand the issue in Exodus 34, how it's supposedly some alternate 10 commandments that contradict the more famous version that's recounted in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy. But before we jump to the conclusion that there's a contradiction there, we should take a step back and carefully read what it does and doesn't say. God does tell Moses to write those commands that he gives in Exodus 34:10-26. But he doesn't clearly call those the 10 commandments. And the text doesn't say that they are the same ones that "he" wrote on the tablets, which are called the 10 commandments, nor that Moses was the one who wrote on the tablets.
> 
> I take it to mean that, in addition to these commands in Exodus 34, which Moses wrote, which are not the 10 commandments, there still were the 10 commandments themselves. And it's the actual 10 commandments which were written on the stone tablets, and that, just as Deuteronomy says, it was God who wrote them.


And you get this how?

----------


## moostraks

> That is worshipping by sight, not by faith.  That is why it is a forbidden practice.


Stone throwing. The same could be said of Scripture. You are seeing, reading, symbols on paper to represent words, which represent speech, which help you visualize the event.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Idolizing an icon would be worshiping the wood and paint.  And if I prostate myself before it, it is not the icon I am worshiping, but the One who's image is on it.  The icon just helps me orient my prayers just like the Scriptures help me orient my prayers.


This^^ Fr. Michael Courey likened the veneration of icons to the way we relate ourselves to pictures of loved ones.  Say, for example, your late grandmother.  You adore what the picture represents-memories, emotions, etc.- you don't adore the paper (or ink if it is a printed image rather than a developed film image on photo paper)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That is worshipping by sight, not by faith.  That is why it is a forbidden practice.


False.  Icons are painted text.  They were designed as an aid for the illterate (the norm for most people in the early centuries of Christianity) as well as the literate.  BTW, what of illiterate and blind people who only learn by listening even in generally literate societies?  Have they made idols of the voices of those who read to them?

----------


## Nang

> Stone throwing. The same could be said of Scripture. You are seeing, reading, symbols on paper to represent words, which represent speech, which help you visualize the event.



Icons offend me.  Does Holy Scripture offend you?

----------


## TER

> Icons offend me.  Does Holy Scripture offend you?


They offend you because you have a poor understanding of them and the appropriate use of them.  If you don't wish to incorporate them in your worship towards God, then by all means don't.  But please don't accuse Christians of idolatry when they do not idolize them.

----------


## Nang

> They offend you because you have a poor understanding of them and the appropriate use of them.  If you don't wish to incorporate them in your worship towards God, then by all means don't.  But please don't accuse Christians of idolatry when they do not idolize them.



Icons offend me because they are forbidden by the 2nd commandment from God Almighty.  That is my belief, and the rules of this forum are that others are to be sensitive to the beliefs or unbelief of others.  (As I was just recently reminded.)

What would it hurt you to stop posting pictures that break the command of God, and offend others?

----------


## Nang

> False.  Icons are painted text.  They were designed as an aid for the illterate


This I believe . . . but who is illiterate on these forums?

----------


## TER

> Icons offend me because they are forbidden by the 2nd commandment from God Almighty.  That is my belief, and the rules of this forum are that others are to be sensitive to the beliefs or unbelief of others.  (As I was just recently reminded.)
> 
> What would it hurt you to stop posting pictures that break the command of God, and offend others?


Do the statues of the cherubim that were on the Arc of the Covenant offend you?

----------


## Nang

> Do the statues of the cherubim that were on the Arc of the Covenant offend you?



Now who is being silly?

No I am not so old that I have seen the cherubim on the Ark,     but they were the design of God to depict His holy protection and care over His Word and Authority . . .
they were not the design of men, like icons, etc.

Do you feel any compunction to cease posting pictures of the Christ due to my letting you know it is greatly offensive to me, or are you going to duck and dodge, and just do what you want, anyway, despite the forum rules?

----------


## TER

> Now who is being silly?
> 
> No I am not so old that I have seen the cherubim on the Ark,     but they were the design of God to depict His holy protection and care over His Word and Authority . . .
> they were not the design of men, like icons, etc.
> 
> Do you feel any compunction to cease posting pictures of the Christ due to my letting you know it is greatly offensive to me, or are you going to duck and dodge, and just do what you want, anyway, despite the forum rules?


lol, when Bryan puts it in the forum rules that I cannot post images of Christ, then I will do so.  Until then, you will have to learn to live with it.

----------


## Nang

> lol, when Bryan puts it in the forum rules that I cannot post images of Christ, then I will do so.  Until then, you will have to learn to live with it.




*5) Be courteous and respectful of readers.*
• No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.
• The use of vulgarity should be avoided and not be gratuitous.
*• No posting of graphically offensive material,* use links with warnings.


"Graphically offensive" does not specify pornography, so should pornography be allowed? 

I find icons to be "graphically offensive" and you tell me I must learn to live with it!!!

Who ARE you . . . .?

Each one posted is an insult to Holy God Almighty and each one posted breaks His Holy Law.

Why is it so vital and necessary for you to bombard the threads with this sin?

----------


## Terry1

> lol, when Bryan puts it in the forum rules that I cannot post images of Christ, then I will do so.  Until then, you will have to learn to live with it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> 


ಢ_ಢ

----------


## RJB

A Christian offended by a painting of Christ?  I thought that was limited to ACLU lawyers?

----------


## TER

> *5) Be courteous and respectful of readers.*
> • No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.
> • The use of vulgarity should be avoided and not be gratuitous.
> *• No posting of graphically offensive material,* use links with warnings.
> 
> 
> "Graphically offensive" does not specify pornography, so should pornography be allowed? 
> 
> I find icons to be "graphically offensive" and you tell me I must learn to live with it!!!
> ...


If this is a valid and real concern for you, please bring it up to the Administration.  Until then, I, an admitted sinner, will continue to post images of my Savior Who appeared in the world in flesh, whether or not you find the image of the Son of God to be offensive to you.

----------


## Nang

> If this is a valid and real concern for you, please bring it up to the Administration.


I already have, and told them that I will continue to report your postings with icons, unless they tell me they approve of your practice.




> Until then, I, an admitted sinner, will continue to post images of my Savior Who appeared in the world in the flesh, whether or not you find the image of the Son of God to be offensive to you.


No doubt, that is why I will continue to report your insensitivity to my beliefs, until Admin settles the matter.

----------


## moostraks

> *5) Be courteous and respectful of readers.*
> • No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.
> • The use of vulgarity should be avoided and not be gratuitous.
> *• No posting of graphically offensive material,* use links with warnings.
> 
> 
> "Graphically offensive" does not specify pornography, so should pornography be allowed? 
> 
> I find icons to be "graphically offensive" and you tell me I must learn to live with it!!!
> ...


1-Not a sin but it seems to be a problem for you personally.
2-If you had been here longer you would understand the context of that rule but I am sure you can flag the posts and take it up with management.
3-If your demands are not accommodated by management then you can always create your own religion forum elsewhere on the web.
4-This forum was built on the basis of working towards liberty. You seem to not respect the basis of the idea of liberty for others. If you find the thread offensive because of pictures then stay out of it. Your mentality is the same mentality employed by those who are dumbing our speech down by demanding everyone use politically correct language.

----------


## Nang

> A Christian offended by a painting of Christ?  I thought that was limited to ACLU lawyers?


Read the 2nd commandment.  

I am not the only one who believes pictures painted of Christ (or actors playing the role of Christ) is SERIOUS violation of God's Law.

----------


## Terry1

> A Christian offended by a painting of Christ?  I thought that was limited to ACLU lawyers?


I know---unbelievable.

----------


## Nang

> 4-This forum was built on the basis of working towards liberty. You seem to not respect the basis of the idea of liberty for others. If you find the thread offensive because of pictures then stay out of it. Your mentality is the same mentality employed by those who are dumbing our speech down by demanding everyone use politically correct language.


Spiritual actions that disregard or break the Holy Laws of God, is called Antinomianism.

Antinomianism = Lawlessness

Such is not "liberty."

----------


## Terry1

> I already have, and told them that I will continue to report your postings with icons, unless they tell me they approve of your practice.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, that is why I will continue to report your insensitivity to my beliefs, until Admin settles the matter.


Are you joking?  You called us "murderers" and you're going to report someone else for "insensitivity"?  You've gone way beyond acceptable here lady.  There's something very wrong with your thinking.

----------


## RJB

> Read the 2nd commandment.  
> 
> I am not the only one who believes pictures painted of Christ (or actors playing the role of Christ) is SERIOUS violation of God's Law.


With the new covenant, we are brought into the family of God.  Christ is our brother, God is our father, Mary is our mother, saints (alive and passed on) are our sisters and brothers.  Icons are not idols.  *They are our spiritual family albums.
*

----------


## TER

> I already have, and told them that I will continue to report your postings with icons, unless they tell me they approve of your practice.


That is fine. At least you are not threatening to kill me as an infidel.

----------


## Nang

> Are you joking?  You called us "murderers" and you're going to report someone else for "insensitivity"?



The Word of God calls you a murderer when you hold malice and judgement in your heart against the brethren.

----------


## moostraks

> Icons offend me.  Does Holy Scripture offend you?


You seem to be lacking the capacity to comprehend the similarity between writing being the symbolic representation of speech of the events and icons being the pictorial representation of the events. 

Stop deflecting. I am not offended by either but I do get annoyed with people who join a liberty forum with every intention to silence others. You have had an agenda and it has taken you no time to make a complete nuisance of yourself. i don't think you will be satisfied until you have them turn the world upside down to suit your selfish demands or close this subforum. Thanks!!! 

Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

----------


## moostraks

> The Word of God calls you a murderer when you hold malice and judgement in your heart against the brethren.


Why are you not subject to any condemnation for your behavior towards others in this regard?

----------


## Terry1

> The Word of God calls you a murderer when you hold malice and judgement in your heart against the brethren.


Well---what exactly would you call what you have done in this forum since the day you arrived then?

----------


## Nang

> Well---what exactly would you call what you have done in this forum since the day you arrived then?



I see you do not deny your heart attitude, and show no repentance, either.  

Instead, you attempt to project your hatefulness onto me.

----------


## Dr.3D

Well, darn!   I've got a bag of rocks here.   Who am I supposed to throw them at?

----------


## Terry1

> The Word of God calls you a murderer when you hold malice and judgement in your heart against the brethren.


No---you called us murderers--not God.

----------


## Nang

> I do get annoyed with people who join a liberty forum with every intention to silence others. You have had an agenda and it has taken you no time to make a complete nuisance of yourself.


Bearing false witness . . . this is violation of the 9th Commandment.  Exodus 20:16

----------


## Terry1

> I see you do not deny your heart attitude, and show no repentance, either.  
> 
> Instead, you attempt to project your hatefulness onto me.


Wait a minute--I see only one person spewing hatred here and it's not me.  I haven't called you any names have I?  So what is your problem then?

----------


## Terry1

> Bearing false witness . . . this is violation of the 9th Commandment.  Exodus 20:16


Now you're accusing moostraks of lying too?  What else ya got there Nang?  You've pretty much attacked, insulted and called everyone names who isn't your brand of Calvinism.

----------


## moostraks

> Bearing false witness . . . this is violation of the 9th Commandment.  Exodus 20:16


 Proverbs 20:11 It is by his deeds that a lad distinguishes himself If his conduct is pure and right.

You have tried to silence TER before and lied about how the discussion went down. When I posted the discussion responses you left the thread. You came onto a thread by TER today and tried to throw the thread under the bus because you cannot seem to figure out how to move on to another thread which is less offensive to you. So you will continue to aggress against those who do not comply by spouting beliefs as you see fit for them to speak. You speak ill of others and yet act like a victim. 

In short order you have made yourself a nuisance because you make claims on how you will manipulate the forum through its rules to silence those with whom you disagree. Memories here are not as short as your own attention span seems to be. I was not making false claims but being forthright about the behavior of a tree sprouting a certain fruit. It was merely an observation from my own perspective. Take it fwiw.

----------


## moostraks

> Spiritual actions that disregard or break the Holy Laws of God, is called Antinomianism.
> 
> Antinomianism = Lawlessness
> 
> Such is not "liberty."


I am still waiting for a response from where you got the specificity for the command as you propose it to be understood. Why should we comply with your petulant demands based upon your tradition and shall you not also comply with the same for others who feel offended by your illumination of the world through the Bible? There are atheists here who have every right to be offended by your picture. Do you not see how ridiculous your arguments are in a forum based on the principles of liberty? Again this is Bryan's call but you are showing your intentions through the people you are targeting and the manner by which you seek to manipulate the rules for your own gain.

----------


## moostraks

> Well, darn!   I've got a bag of rocks here.   Who am I supposed to throw them at?


Anyone who believes in free will as opposed to TULIP...

That will guarantee you are one of the elect and you no longer are responsible for being hateful or mistreating others. You may also silence and condemn all who disagree and act as petty as possible all while claiming any argument to the contrary is to be a pot arguing to the potter. Any questions?

----------


## erowe1

> And you get this how?


From reading all the passages of the Bible that talk about the 10 commandments, and not just Exodus 34 all by itself.

Nowhere in Exodus 34 does it actually call the commands given in that chapter the 10 commandments. It refers to the 10 commandments, but it doesn't say that the 10 commandments are the same commandments that that chapter contains. However, the commandments in Deuteronomy 4 are explicitly called the 10 commandments, and those commandments are the same ones given in Exodus 20, not the ones given in Exodus 34. When Exodus 34 refers to the 10 commandments, I see no reason to think it can't be talking about that same set of 10 commandments, the ones given in Exodus 20.

If there's a way to read these texts without saying they contradict each other, then we should read it that way.

----------


## erowe1

> Anyone who believes in free will as opposed to TULIP...


Believing in TULIP has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in free will.

----------


## moostraks

> Believing in TULIP has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in free will.


Lol! Well we will have to agree to disagree with that. I don't see your perspective as free will even after hearing the "logic" used.  I am not going down that road and I know your position. Feel free to expound for others who want/need to hear it again to refute me based upon my disagreement of it being "free".

----------


## erowe1

> Lol! Well we will have to agree to disagree with that. I don't see your perspective as free will even after hearing the "logic" used.  I am not going down that road and I know your position. Feel free to expound for others who want/need to hear it again to refute me based upon my disagreement of it being "free".


There's nothing to expound. There's nothing in TULIP that excludes the possibility of free will. Lots of people believe in both. The Roman Catholic Church even makes affirming both predestination and free will as matters of dogma.

When I encounter people who pit the two against each other, it seems always to be the case that the only way they manage to reach that conclusion is by defining "free will" as the making of choices that were not predestined.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Anyone who believes in free will as opposed to TULIP...
> 
> That will guarantee you are one of the elect and you no longer are responsible for being hateful or mistreating others. You may also silence and condemn all who disagree and act as petty as possible all while claiming any argument to the contrary is to be a pot arguing to the potter. *Any questions?*


How is that considered loving my neighbor?

----------


## moostraks

> There's nothing to expound. There's nothing in TULIP that excludes the possibility of free will. Lots of people believe in both. The Roman Catholic Church even makes affirming both predestination and free will as matters of dogma.
> 
> When I encounter people who pit the two against each other, it seems always to be the case that the only way they manage to reach that conclusion is by defining "free will" as the making of choices that were not predestined.


My problem is with the U in TULIP.

----------


## moostraks

> How is that considered loving my neighbor?


If you don't thrown stones they won't realize they are WRONG!

----------


## erowe1

> My problem is with the U in TULIP.


I understand that. But the U in TULIP doesn't say anything about free will. Neither do the T, L, I, or P, which it seemed like you also had problems with if I'm not mistaken.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There's nothing to expound. There's nothing in TULIP that excludes the possibility of free will. Lots of people believe in both. The Roman Catholic Church even makes affirming both predestination and free will as matters of dogma.
> 
> When I encounter people who pit the two against each other, it seems always to be the case that the only way they manage to reach that conclusion is by defining "free will" as the making of choices that were not predestined.


Does not "Unconditional election" exclude free will?  It is, as it was explained to me, determined before creation itself-therefore our wills are not truly "free".

----------


## erowe1

> Does not "Unconditional election" exclude free will?  It is, as it was explained to me, determined before creation itself-therefore our wills are not truly "free".


Why does "determined before creation" mean that our wills are not truly free? I don't see the connection between those two things. Could God not have determined before creation what peoples' free will decisions would be?

----------


## moostraks

> I understand that. But the U in TULIP doesn't say anything about free will. Neither do the T, L, I, or P, which it seemed like you also had problems with if I'm not mistaken.


Actually meant to say the T as I forgot the correct order the rules went in. For some reason I was thinking utter and not total depravity. And we were speaking specific to free will so it was the t that TULIP folks lose me on the free will argument. To each his own but I choose to disagree.

----------


## moostraks

> Why does "determined before creation" mean that our wills are not truly free? I don't see the connection between those two things. Could God not have determined before creation what peoples' free will decisions would be?


Well when you get past the performance of how one is free in their choice as totally depraved to have been created with an ability which may only chose wrong for which they are then punished with the flames of hell , I am fairly certain it is but another leap of faith by which one can then grasp the rest of the arguments that are thus constructed with similar logic.

----------


## TER

> Actually meant to say the T as I forgot the correct order the rules went in. For some reason I was thinking utter and not total depravity. And we were speaking specific to free will so it was the t that TULIP folks lose me on the free will argument. To each his own but I choose to disagree.


The Limited Atonement bothers me the most, because it completely disregards that Christ's death on the cross was for everyone, for all men will rise again from the dead because of Christ's selfless sacrifice.  Christ dying on the cross does not mean everyone will enter into the Kingdom, but at least, as a loving God, grants everyone at least the chance to enter in.  Otherwise, He is a tyrant and not the God of Love revealed by Jesus Christ.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why does "determined before creation" mean that our wills are not truly free? I don't see the connection between those two things. *Could God not have determined before creation what peoples' free will decisions would be?*


If people's decisions were determined beforehand, how can they be called decisions based on free will?  From an individual's perspective you could say it _seems_ like free will-just as a character in a story thinks he has free will-but if everything is predetermined, the illusion of free will is just an illusion.

----------


## Nang

> If people's decisions were determined beforehand, how can they be called decisions based on free will?


By being educated in the scriptural doctrine of "Federal Headship."

Ever heard of it?

----------


## Terry1

> By being educated in the scriptural doctrine of "Federal Headship."
> 
> Ever heard of it?


It's another johnny-come-lately reformed doctrine of the protestants---mainly Presbyterians and reformed churches.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's another johnny-come-lately reformed doctrine of the protestants---mainly Presbyterians and reformed churches.


qft.

----------


## moostraks

> From reading all the passages of the Bible that talk about the 10 commandments, and not just Exodus 34 all by itself.
> 
> Nowhere in Exodus 34 does it actually call the commands given in that chapter the 10 commandments. It refers to the 10 commandments, but it doesn't say that the 10 commandments are the same commandments that that chapter contains. However, the commandments in Deuteronomy 4 are explicitly called the 10 commandments, and those commandments are the same ones given in Exodus 20, not the ones given in Exodus 34. When Exodus 34 refers to the 10 commandments, I see no reason to think it can't be talking about that same set of 10 commandments, the ones given in Exodus 20.
> 
> If there's a way to read these texts without saying they contradict each other, then we should read it that way.


Okay so I follow your train of thought. Your explanation for this sentence:
28 And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
 would then be it is missing the word and as well as the Ten Commandments are erroneously set off by a comma thus making it appear to be descriptive of the words preceding it?

----------


## Nang

> It's another johnny-come-lately reformed doctrine of the protestants---mainly Presbyterians and reformed churches.



It is the scriptural teaching found and emphasized in Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:45-49.  

Ever heard of it?

No, of course not. . . What I thought . . .

This is just a worldly free-for-all  "religious" forum, not an actual Christian Theological forum. 

 I keep forgetting that detail.

----------


## Nang

> Okay so I follow your train of thought. Your explanation for this sentence:
> 28 And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
>  would then be it is missing the word and as well as the Ten Commandments are erroneously set off by a comma thus making it appear to be descriptive of the words preceding it?



There are NO commas in the original Hebrew . . .

----------


## moostraks

> There are NO commas in the original Hebrew . . .


The various English versions seem to be in agreement by separating by commas or dashes that the 10 commandments are descriptive of the words they directly follow. So is it your contention that all the various English versions are faulty in separating this phrase? Do you have a list of other grammatical errors in which I should discard the English version for another language? Also with said list please inform upon whose authority said list is based and not your subjective opinion, please. TIA...

----------


## Nang

> The various English versions seem to be in agreement by separating by commas or dashes that the 10 commandments are descriptive of the words they directly follow. So is it your contention that all the various English versions are faulty in separating this phrase? Do you have a list of other grammatical errors in which I should discard the English version for another language? Also with said list please inform upon whose authority said list is based and not your subjective opinion, please. TIA...


Ever heard of periscopic hermeneutics?

No, of course not.

This is a worldly religious forum, not a Christian Theological forum.

I keep forgetting that detail . . .

----------


## Dr.3D

> Ever heard of periscopic hermeneutics?
> 
> No, of course not.
> 
> This is a worldly religious forum, not a Christian Theological forum.
> 
> I keep forgetting that detail . . .


Well, you need to get that through your head.   If you are looking for a Theological forum, perhaps you should check with one of the seminary boards.

----------


## RJB

> Ever heard of periscopic hermeneutics?


  Sounds like something used for a colonoscopy.  If it is religious, what chapter and verse would I find those words?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Sounds like something used for a colonoscopy.  If it is religious, what chapter and verse would I find those words?


LOL

----------


## Nang

> LOL



Another, (better?) word for those with coarse, carnal minds, might be parallelistic hermeneutics . . . such as is found in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2.

An overview, and then a repeated detailed account.

----------


## Kevin007

Nowhere does God approve of any type of worship toward objects that are even of Himself, neither the tabernacle which housed His presence, nor the ark which had the tablets, were to be worshiped.

 Cursed is any man who makes any graven image or molten image it is an abomination to the Lord (Lev 26:1, Deut 27:15).

----------


## Terry1

Everybody has to live their own convictions---that's called "walking in the Spirit of the Lord".  No one knows whom God has called to be or do what.  If it's a sin to you--then don't do it--if it's not, then we're all free people in Christ to do what it takes to win souls as God calls.



*Colossians 2:16

Freedom From Human Rules

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nowhere does God approve of any type of worship toward objects that are even of Himself, neither the tabernacle which housed His presence, nor the ark which had the tablets, were to be worshiped.
> 
> “ Cursed is any man who makes any graven image or molten image it is an abomination to the Lord” (Lev 26:1, Deut 27:15).


True.  That is why icons are not worshipped.  Thanks for bringing that up again.  It can't be repeated enough, as many people here and elsewhere don't understand it or choose to misrepresent what icons are and their intended use.

----------


## Kevin007

> True.  That is why icons are not worshipped.  Thanks for bringing that up again.  It can't be repeated enough, as many people here and elsewhere don't understand it or choose to misrepresent what icons are and their intended use.


thx HB.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I have seen the universal church (both Orthodox and Catholic) accused of idolatry because of the icons we use around teh interwebz, and on these forums, IIRC.  This article addresses the issue quite well, IMO. (though specific to Orthodoxy) Hope you enjoy. 
> 
> http://www.stgeorgeaz.com/index.php?id=55
> Do Orthodox icons border on idolatry?
> 
> In Orthodox Christianity, icons are never worshipped, but they are honored and venerated.  Worship is reserved for God alone.  The second Commandment says, "you shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness or anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4-5).  The warnings here are, first, that we are not to depict images of things which are limited to heaven and therefore unseen, and second, we never bow down to or worship created, earthly things.  Does this condemn all imagery in worship?  The Scriptures tell us emphatically no!
> 
> Just five chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God, as recorded in Exodus 25, gives his divine blueprint, if you will, for the tabernacle.  Specifically in verses 19 and 20 he commands images of cherubim to be placed above the mercy seat.  Also, God promises to meet and speak with us through this imagery! (Ex.25:22)
> 
> ...



"In Orthodox Christianity, icons are never worshipped, but they are honored and venerated. Worship is reserved for God alone. "

Veneration and honor are acts of worship. But perhaps if you stopped there you're argument may make sense to me. But you don't. Ikons and and saints statues are literally lifted up, carried around, protected, and prayed before. There is a point where reverence and respect for something you believe to be sacred can cross the line into idolatry, and that is when you begin to treat the ikon as if it were the thing is symbolizes. To often I see this happen. So while your theology may not necessarily be idolatrous, it walks the line so finely that many people cross it without realizing it. 

"Just five chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, God, as recorded in Exodus 25, gives his divine blueprint, if you will, for the tabernacle. Specifically in verses 19 and 20 he commands images of cherubim to be placed above the mercy seat. Also, God promises to meet and speak with us through this imagery! (Ex.25:22)"

This is probably the best argument for your case. The Ark of the Covenant is treated as a thing of reverence throughout the OT. But the parallels aren't completely solid. There were times the Israelites treated the Ark as if it itself were holy and the source of power, as opposed to symbolizing Israel's true source of power-their covenant with God, and when they did this they were punished with crushing defeat and even lost the Ark. 

Also the interpretation of that verse I find to be incorrect. It reads:

"And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel."

No where does God promise to communicate *from* the imagery, but from between the wings of the cherubim. The difference between these two is like a king sat on his throne and gave counsel, and a king's throne gave counsel. The mercy seat was the throne of God in His temple. Nothing about the imagery of the mercy seat facilitated communion with God. The Israelites didn't pray to the cherubim, or before the cherubim, and God did not speak from the cherubim. Rather He was between the two and spoke directly to the High Priest as a King of His throne dispensing justice and giving counsel to be obeyed.

----------


## moostraks

> Ever heard of periscopic hermeneutics?
> 
> No, of course not.
> 
> This is a worldly religious forum, not a Christian Theological forum.
> 
> I keep forgetting that detail . . .


Condescending, smug, and omniscient. You never answered the questions I asked. Upon what authority is it that you discard the English version which was written for English speakers comprehension and choose a different language and where is your authoritative list of grammatical errors for further enlightenment? Upon what basis are you periscoping/paralleling this particular belief of yours? Tossing out terms and not presenting evidence of historical and Biblical nature is not the standard you have demanded of others. So upon what historical and Biblical proof do you base your position of this argument?

Well, now that you realize the error of presuming this sub-forum of a liberty forum is one that is utilized by those of not just your particular belief system but those of numerous faiths maybe you can participate in a manner that provides some value rather than just being adversarial and trying to silence those with whom you disagree. Peace on your path~~~

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I am paying attention and your attitude for a newcomer needs to be checked at the door. You are spamming threads such as the one on the Christian Creed because you have a problem with icons. This is why TER brought the post here to address it, to which you have acted like you shall do as you please, and we all got the memo you think you can act however you please and we will suck it up because you are elderly. What you seem to be forgetting is most of us have been here for some time and really appreciate this site and what the owners put up with in order to keep it running. So you are are being informed of site rules as a courtesy and because us old timers do not need you new folks to ruin things for the rest of us. You do not own this site and if you continue to spam threads then you will likely be flagged for it. If you have a problem with Terry, then deal with it through the appropriate channels. Flag the posts.


Threads get derailed and spammed constantly.  You just don't like what she is saying.

----------


## RJB

Now we're at the point where most religious debates devolve.  We ignore the 407+ posts and all the info put forth by the members.  We assume the worst of the other and the debates turn into this:

"You worship icons."
"No I don't."
"Yes you do."
"No I don't." 
"Yes you do."
"No I don't."
ad infinitum...

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Well---what exactly would you call what you have done in this forum since the day you arrived then?


Brought truth and respect for Holy Scripture.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Nowhere does God approve of any type of worship toward objects that are even of Himself, neither the tabernacle which housed His presence, nor the ark which had the tablets, were to be worshiped.
> 
> “ Cursed is any man who makes any graven image or molten image it is an abomination to the Lord” (Lev 26:1, Deut 27:15).


+ rep

----------


## moostraks

> Threads get derailed constantly.


They sure do but spamming each thread with an off topic to silence conversation by those you have a theological ax to wield upon, besides not being Christ-like and detrimental to those who share your faith system, eliminates the ability for an educational exchange of ideas. Much like S_F was doing to miss Annie recently, openly and with no remorse, discarding the op to twist each thread into his pet argument. I don't flag posts but people will utilize this option when someone is continually disruptive.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

As my Dad used to say, "holy crap"!  Poor Bryan is going be innundated by flagged posts.  Poor guy.  The political debates get alot hotter and ruder than these.  I think some of us need to get a thicker skin.  Including myself and I'm saying this before, "you know who",  attacks.

----------


## moostraks

> As my Dad used to say, "holy crap"!  Poor Bryan is going be innundated by flagged posts.  Poor guy.  The political debates get alot hotter and ruder than these.  I think some of us need to get a thicker skin.  Including myself and I'm saying this before, "you know who",  attacks.


Lol! Well, I think that if one is to abuse the system by extraneous flagging Bryan has a solution for that. Would be nice if people could engage in beneficial discussion. Even when I disagree with people I enjoy seeing how others think and challenging myself to examine a weed out my own presumptions. 

Erowe brought up an interesting argument with the tablets. Currently I disagree based upon the questions I put forth. Would like to see some more from his position without it turning into a peeing match with allegations of how stupid or hellbound I am because my views are different. That is becoming quite tiresome and unnecessary.

As for political debates being ruder, well I guess, to me, being told you are not entitled to the same respect for reading text and drawing conclusions and thus are hated and fit for the wrath of the Creator to be burned in hell is a good bit worse then having someone challenge my political beliefs and call me names.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

We have to get used to being hated and called fit for wrath.  Things are going to get a whole lot harder for believers in the days to come.  We're learning this every day.  Got to get a thicker skin, I tell myself.  Actually time away from this forum helps, when I do it and stick to it.

Anyway, enough said.  Back to the topic at hand.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

delete post

----------


## moostraks

> We have to get used to being hated and called fit for wrath.  Things are going to get a whole lot harder for believers in the days to come.  We're learning this every day.  Got to get a thicker skin, I tell myself.  Actually time away from this forum helps, when I do it and stick to it.
> 
> Anyway, enough said.  Back to the topic at hand.


Do the people who are doing it not realize how destructive they are being though? There is a point of being tolerant because it is expected that one is going to be treated harshly, and there is watching people who claim to embrace a faith of Love act rude and ugly to those who disagree with, not the Creator himself, but a particular interpretation. The constant condescension and name calling is just so destructive. So many people walk away in disgust because of the loveless behavior and constant holier-than-thou attitudes of the "believers".A large portion of humanity will not darken the steps of the brick and mortar churches because of the constant barrage of "we are right, they are wrong, and if you disagree you are going to hell". How can one love their neighbor when all they see is the words "you are wrong and damned" in flashing lights every time they speak to them?

And what does this have to do with icons? Well, having been raised by a parent who detested Catholics, I know the mindset regarding contempt toward icons and yet wanted to know what the other side believed. Once I set aside the argument that had been pounded into my brain over the issue, I listened to what was being said by the other side and then let it go. Just like sacrificed meat, it is a head game. Right now, I would probably not feel comfortable personally in an EO church because this is still a stumbling block for me. Other people can grasp His fullness through these tools. So who am I to belittle their use when it has been effectively serving believers in their faith. Anything can be a sin if it is used inappropriately and sometimes we need to have some trust in His ability to work in the lives of others as is necessary because we don't have all the answers and He knows their heart.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Another, (better?) word for those with coarse, carnal minds, might be parallelistic hermeneutics . . . such as is found in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2.
> 
> An overview, and then a repeated detailed account.


And just how would that apply to anything we have been discussing?   Are you just trying to impress us with your theological prowess?

----------


## Terry1

*Romans 14: 1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.*

As the word of God says with regard to His servants that choose to do things others don't agree with, that those who judge will be met with not just the same judgment but worse.

Paul is telling the servants of God not to persecute those who practice other traditions here.  He is telling us that what one does to serve God is not what another may do to serve Him and that God is able to make that servant stand in spite of what others may feel they're doing that is wrong.

Live your own convictions in the Lord and preach Christ always.

Some of you who call yourselves "brethren" are not worthy of the title because you persecute the brethren and treat them horribly.  Some of you who are accusing the other while indeed practicing, believing and preaching false doctrines just the same as you accuse others of.  You will be met with that same judgment by God Himself, so remember this when you start calling the brethren names, insulting them and accusing them of things that they're not guilty of but you-yourself are guilty of the same you accuse them.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> A large portion of humanity will not darken the steps of the brick and mortar churches because of the constant barrage of "we are right, they are wrong, and if you disagree you are going to hell".


Amen to that.

In the US, church attendance has been steadily declining over the past several decades. That has been a big part of the reason for all these "rock-n-roll" church services, accompanied by shorts and flip-flops instead of wearing your Sunday best.  And it ain't working very well, from what I see.

The world gets smaller every day, and I think the message of "believe like we do or you're going to burn in hell" no longer resonates very deeply with people who are much better educated about other cultures, as well as the death and destruction wrought by the "faithful" of traditional religions.

----------


## Terry1

> Do the people who are doing it not realize how destructive they are being though? There is a point of being tolerant because it is expected that one is going to be treated harshly, and there is watching people who claim to embrace a faith of Love act rude and ugly to those who disagree with, not the Creator himself, but a particular interpretation. The constant condescension and name calling is just so destructive. So many people walk away in disgust because of the loveless behavior and constant holier-than-thou attitudes of the "believers".A large portion of humanity will not darken the steps of the brick and mortar churches because of the constant barrage of "we are right, they are wrong, and if you disagree you are going to hell". How can one love their neighbor when all they see is the words "you are wrong and damned" in flashing lights every time they speak to them?
> 
> And what does this have to do with icons? Well, having been raised by a parent who detested Catholics, I know the mindset regarding contempt toward icons and yet wanted to know what the other side believed. Once I set aside the argument that had been pounded into my brain over the issue, I listened to what was being said by the other side and then let it go. Just like sacrificed meat, it is a head game. Right now, I would probably not feel comfortable personally in an EO church because this is still a stumbling block for me. Other people can grasp His fullness through these tools. So who am I to belittle their use when it has been effectively serving believers in their faith. Anything can be a sin if it is used inappropriately and sometimes we need to have some trust in His ability to work in the lives of others as is necessary because we don't have all the answers and He knows their heart.


+ reps because I'm out of reps for you dear moostraks!   God only is able to make that person stand who does what they do in honor, love and respect for HIM.  Romans 14:1

----------


## Nang

> Originally Posted by *Nang* 
> Another, (better?) word for those with coarse, carnal minds, might be parallelistic hermeneutics . . . such as is found in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2.
> 
> An overview, and then a repeated detailed account.






> And just how would that apply to anything we have been discussing?   Are you just trying to impress us with your theological prowess?



It goes back to the discussion regarding God writing the Ten Commandments, found in posts 324 to 329; Moostrak questioned in 338 and erowe1 gave answer in 375, then Moostrak questioned again in 392, and I in support of erowe1's explanation, posted the above.

It is hard to keep track of some conversations, with all the interruptions, but that is the gist of the conversation, and no, I am not out too impress, but to reveal there are excellent helps available for edifying bible studies and obtaining a sound basis for one's faith from the Word rightly divided.

Strange that discussing proper theology and decent hermeneutics would be considered egotistic . . .

----------


## Terry1

> It goes back to the discussion regarding God writing the Ten Commandments, found in posts 324 to 329; Moostrak questioned in 338 and erowe1 gave answer in 375, then Moostrak questioned again in 392, and I in support of erowe1's explanation, posted the above.
> 
> It is hard to keep track of some conversations, with all the interruptions, but that is the gist of the conversation, and no, I am not out too impress, but to reveal there are excellent helps available for edifying bible studies and obtaining a sound basis for one's faith from the Word rightly divided.
> 
> Strange that discussing proper theology and decent hermeneutics would be considered egotistic . . .


It is when you accuse the other brethren of being "murderers" who don't follow your reasoning lock-step.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Strange that discussing proper theology and decent hermeneutics would be considered egotistic . . .


Well, to us "with coarse, carnal minds", a lot of things sound egotistical.

----------


## Nang

> Well, to us "with coarse, carnal minds", a lot of things sound egotistical.



I apologize to you if you took that remark personally.

----------


## moostraks

> It goes back to the discussion regarding God writing the Ten Commandments, found in posts 324 to 329; Moostrak questioned in 338 and erowe1 gave answer in 375, then Moostrak questioned again in 392, and I in support of erowe1's explanation, posted the above.
> 
> It is hard to keep track of some conversations, with all the interruptions, but that is the gist of the conversation, and no, I am not out too impress, but to reveal there are excellent helps available for edifying bible studies and obtaining a sound basis for one's faith from the Word rightly divided.
> 
> Strange that discussing proper theology and decent hermeneutics would be considered egotistic . . .


You threw terms around which is all well and good but you have yet to clarify the relevance to the discussion by utilizing them to prove your point. Are you going to get around to it?

----------


## moostraks

> I apologize to you if you took that remark personally.


And you meant it to not be taken personally by anyone?

----------


## Dr.3D

> And you meant it to not be taken personally by anyone?


Well, I'm impressed none the less.

----------


## erowe1

> If people's decisions were determined beforehand, how can they be called decisions based on free will?


I don't see why not, or how those two things have anything to do with one another.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay so I follow your train of thought. Your explanation for this sentence:
> 28 And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
>  would then be it is missing the word and as well as the Ten Commandments are erroneously set off by a comma thus making it appear to be descriptive of the words preceding it?


No. That's not missing any word. Nothing in what you just quoted makes it appear that the phrase "the Ten Commandments" refers to the same commandments that were given earlier in Exodus 34.





> The various English versions seem to be in agreement by separating by commas or dashes that the 10 commandments are descriptive of the words they directly follow.


Have you actually checked the various English translations?

What you're saying about the use of a comma isn't true. The comma indicates that the Ten Commandments are what "he" (whoever "he" is) wrote on the tablets. The comma does not indicate that they are the same commandments that were given earlier in Exodus 34, which God told Moses to write.

If you actually look at the various English translations, you'll see that several of them interpret the verse exactly the way I explained by capitalizing "He," indicating that it was God who wrote the ten commandments on the tablets, not Moses, and thus indicating that the writing that Moses was commanded to do was writing of the commandments given in Exodus 34:10-26, which are different than the ten commandments.
http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Exodus%2034:28

Also, notice that in Exodus 34:1 God says that He, not Moses, will write on this second set of tablets. And notice also that what he says he will write on them is the same things that were on the first set. That means that the ten commandments written on the tablets in Exodus 34:28 are the same ten commandments that were given in Exodus 20. The commandments given in Exodus 34:10-26, which Moses is told to write, are not called the ten commandments, and are not written on stone tablets.

----------


## Nang

> You threw terms around which is all well and good but you have yet to clarify the relevance to the discussion by utilizing them to prove your point. Are you going to get around to it?


I gave example of how the term "parallelism" is employed  here.

----------


## erowe1

Here's something interesting. Since TER was the one to claim that Exodus 34:28 refers to Moses, not God, writing the commandments on the second set of tablets, I checked to see what Gregory of Nyssa had to say about it. And he agrees with what I said. In section 60 of Book 1 of his _Life of Moses_ he writes, concerning this second set of tablets (this is after he has already recounted the story of the destruction of the first set):



> Once more applying himself to the matter for forty days, he received the tablets. The writing on them was done by divine power, but the material was fashioned by the hand of Moses.


It seems clear to me that referring to Exodus 34:1 saying that Moses would cut the stones and God would write on them.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Here's something interesting. Since TER was the one to claim that Exodus 34:28 refers to Moses, not God, writing the commandments on the second set of tablets, I checked to see what Gregory of Nyssa had to say about it. And he agrees with what I said. In section 60 of Book 1 of his _Life of Moses_ he writes, concerning this second set of tablets (this is after he has already recounted the story of the destruction of the first set:
> 
> It seems clear to me that referring to Exodus 34:1 saying that Moses would cut the stones and God would write on them.


That's in agreement with the "Complete Jewish Bible" too.



> _CJB_ *Exodus 34:28* Moshe was there with ADONAI forty days and forty nights, during which time he neither ate food nor drank water. [ADONAI] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Words.

----------


## Nang

> Here's something interesting. Since TER was the one to claim that Exodus 34:28 refers to Moses, not God, writing the commandments on the second set of tablets, I checked to see what Gregory of Nyssa had to say about it. And he agrees with what I said. In section 60 of Book 1 of his _Life of Moses_ he writes, concerning this second set of tablets (this is after he has already recounted the story of the destruction of the first set:
> 
> It seems clear to me that referring to Exodus 34:1 saying that Moses would cut the stones and God would write on them.


Indeed, and it proves to be an important and very rich passage to apply as a type of God writing the Law upon hearts at the time of regeneration:

"Forasmuch as you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in fleshly tablets of the heart."  
 II Corinthians 3:3

He is the inspiration and power; our hearts are his material.

The entire passage of II Corinthians 3:1-18 reveals the consistency of God's Holy Word.   Amen.

----------


## Terry1

Even I had to recheck that particular scripture because I too thought that Moses wrote the second set, but instead Moses made or carved the stones and God wrote on them, but this is not an indication that anyone misunderstands Gods Ten Commandments, but part of scripture that can easily be remembered as Moses taking part in the creation of the second set of tablets.  No big deal.

----------


## moostraks

> No. That's not missing any word. Nothing in what you just quoted makes it appear that the phrase "the Ten Commandments" refers to the same commandments that were given earlier in Exodus 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you actually checked the various English translations?
> 
> What you're saying about the use of a comma isn't true. The comma indicates that the Ten Commandments are what "he" (whoever "he" is) wrote on the tablets. The comma does not indicate that they are the same commandments that were given earlier in Exodus 34, which God told Moses to write.
> 
> ...


Yes, I checked some of the more popular ones last night but was on my ipod and it is noxious to do parallels so was looking specific to the offset in regards to the comma and that is where I saw some were using dashes. Most of the ones I thumbed through were setting it apart in what appears to be clarification. I can see the argument regarding Ex 34:1. I will check out the various versions with regards to the he in a bit.  

I disagree that it is proper that one would set the phrase off with the comma and be using it in a series of two. 

Ex 34:27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

So take this version for instance. Verse 27 the Lord says write down these words, to Moses, I have made a covenant, and he (Moses) wrote the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments. The structure and thought leaves the reader to be thinking Moses is to be writing the words to the covenant. I know what verse 1 says. I know your argument but the structure of what is written does not seem to be proper. 

We have Moses who: 4...chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the Lord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. Which has one thinking that he has this conversation over the rules that you say are a separate covenant that Moses is writing on what? We are not given any information that he came with other than two tablets on Mount Sinai. Maybe there was a whole bunch more written on the second set??? Moses added the fine print.

----------


## erowe1

> I disagree that it is proper that one would set the phrase off with the comma and be using it in a series of two.


I don't get this. What comma, and what series of two?

The words of the covenant that are written on the tablets (by someone--I say God, you say Moses) in Exodus 34:28 are the ten commandments.

The version of Exodus 34:28 you just presented doesn't have a comma in it. And still in your own version, I see nothing in it that determines that the antecedent of "he" in that verse has to be Moses, and not God.

----------


## moostraks

> I gave example of how the term "parallelism" is employed  here.


Maybe I am not making myself clear to you. I am asking you to substantiate your position in regard to this discussion regarding the Ten Commandments and the second set. You act like we are a bunch of neanderthals with no exposure to the enlightened world. You made a claim now back it up based upon your method. Stop telling me how you are going to make your point and go ahead and make it already...

----------


## moostraks

> I don't get this. What comma, and what series of two?
> 
> The words of the covenant that are written on the tablets (by someone--I say God, you say Moses) in Exodus 34:28 are the ten commandments.
> 
> The version of Exodus 34:28 you just presented doesn't have a comma in it. And still in your own version, I see nothing in it that determines that the antecedent of "he" in that verse has to be Moses, and not God.


Did you not say you believed Moses to have written down the other commands in Exodus 34, or did I mistake what you said?

----------


## erowe1

> Did you not say you believed Moses to have written down the other commands in Exodus 34, or did I mistake what you said?


Yes. In verse 27 God commanded Moses to write those commands that God had just given in Exodus 34:10-26. I do not take those commands in Exodus 34:10-26 to be the same ones that are called "the ten commandments" in verse 28. I take the ten commandments in verse 28 to be the same ten commandments as the ones given in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, which are the famous ones. I don't accept the theory that Exodus 34 has some alternate version of the ten commandments.

But I don't see how any of this has anything to do with any comma or a "series of two." You lost me when you mentioned those things.

----------


## TER

> Here's something interesting. Since TER was the one to claim that Exodus 34:28 refers to Moses, not God, writing the commandments on the second set of tablets, I checked to see what Gregory of Nyssa had to say about it. And he agrees with what I said. In section 60 of Book 1 of his _Life of Moses_ he writes, concerning this second set of tablets (this is after he has already recounted the story of the destruction of the first set), he writes:
> 
> It seems clear to me that referring to Exodus 34:1 saying that Moses would cut the stones and God would write on them.


Interesting!  I confess I may be mistaken.  I remember in my own readings that it seemed from reading Exodus 34:28 that Moses wrote the writings on the tablets.  Of course, it is easy to see from the first set that God hewn the stone and wrote on the tablets.  With the second one, it is obvious that Moses is instead the one who hews the stone.  The question then who wrote the commandments down?  God first states He will write them.  Does this mean with His divine finger like the first time?  Or through Moses?  

The previous verse 27 states (NKJV)

_Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”_

So we know Moses wrote words down.  Was it then the other additional commandments?  Had the Lord already written the Ten Commandments with His divine finger?

From the particular verses 34:28, it seems it is Moses.  Indeed, in the Septuagint which is the official text of the Christian Church, it is written like this:




> καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ Μωυσῆς ἐναντίον κυρίου τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ τεσσαράκοντα νύκτας ἄρτον οὖκ ἔφαγεν καὶ ὕδωρ οὐκ ἔπιεν καὶ ἔγραψεν τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῶν πλακῶν τῆς διαθήκης τοὺς δέκα λόγους


which is translated like this:




> And Moses was there before the Lord forty days, and forty nights; he did not eat bread, and he did not drink water; and *he* wrote upon the tables these words of the covenant, the ten sayings.


This sounds like it is Moses who wrote the words.  But perhaps the 'he' is referring to God and not Moses.  I will have to search what the Church Fathers have to say about it.  I am sure there is a consensus on this.  

If St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the greatest saints of the early Church (one of my favorites to boot!) states it was done by the divine finger of God, then I am mistaken, I was only giving my interpretation.  Please forgive me for giving inaccurate information.  I am more then happy to take his interpretation of the verse over mine.

Thank you erowe for pointing out my error!

----------


## moostraks

> Yes. In verse 27 God commanded Moses to write those commands that God had just given in Exodus 34:10-26. I do not take those commands in Exodus 34:10-26 to be the same ones that are called "the ten commandments" in verse 28. I take the ten commandments in verse 28 to be the same ten commandments as the ones given in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, which are the famous ones. I don't accept the theory that Exodus 34 has some alternate version of the ten commandments.
> 
> But I don't see how any of this has anything to do with any comma or a "series of two." You lost me when you mentioned those things.


Okay, the comma or series of two I thought you were differentiating that he (Moses) wrote the covenants. So one he wrote the first in the series but the second He wrote the second in the series. Clear as mud? 

So my problem is that verse 27 being followed by 28 leaves the reader to think the covenants are one and the same. It is weird how there are a number that parallel the original and seems like fine print. So what was Moses writing his version on if he came up with 2 stone tablets and came down with 2 stone tablets? Was checking the parallels but so far only found HCSB bible that would capital the H in he (He).

If my children tried to palm off writing this way on me I would seriously be sending it back to them to clarify their points. It is interesting as I never really concerned myself over this idea before but appreciate you bothering to share your position on it.

----------


## erowe1

> This sounds like it is Moses who wrote the words.


I disagree. There is nothing in the LXX that requires that the subject of the last clause be Moses and not God.

At any rate, even if we went with the view that the commandments in Exodus 34:10-26 were some alternate ten commandments, and that these other ten commandments were written by Moses on stone tablets, it would still be the case that the original ten commandments, the famous ones, were also rewritten on a second set of tablets, according to Deuteronomy 5, and that these were written by God himself.

Either way, the famous ten commandments, as given in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, were written only by God, both the first time and the second time they were written. If it really is the case that Exodus 34 has some other lesser-known version of ten commandments that were written on stone tablets by Moses, and not God, that doesn't change that.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, the comma or series of two I thought you were differentiating that he (Moses) wrote the covenants. So one he wrote the first in the series but the second He wrote the second in the series. Clear as mud?


I don't see any series. There is only one "he wrote." And I'm saying that "he" there is God.

----------


## erowe1

> So my problem is that verse 27 being followed by 28 leaves the reader to think the covenants are one and the same.


I think they are closely related. But that has to be qualified.

The covenant God made with Israel through Moses includes all of the hundreds of commands in the Pentateuch. And, according to multiple places in the Pentateuch, Moses wrote these words of the covenant. This includes the commands given in Exodus 34:10-26, which God, in verse 27, commanded Moses to write. Compare this with "the book of the covenant," which Moses wrote in Exodus 24:4 and 7. That book of the covenant apparently contained all of the commands in Exodus 21-23. But the special set of commands that are given at the beginning of that encounter in chapter 20, the ten commandments, are special and are like the heading of all the rest. Also compare this with the Law that Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 27:3; 31:9; etc. That seems to be talking about the whole set of laws given throughout the book of Deuteronomy, if I understand it correctly. This writing is also called the covenant in 29:1 and other places. But once again, the ten commandments, given in Deuteronomy 5 stand apart on their own as the epitome of the whole larger covenant, and they are called the covenant in 5:3.

The ten commandments, taken by themselves, stand for the whole covenant, and encompass everything else it says in summary form.

The commands that God gives Moses in Exodus 34:10-26 are part of the covenant that the ten commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 epitomize. God commands Moses to write those specific commands. But God himself writes the ten commandments. And the phrase "the ten commandments" in Exodus 34:28 doesn't refer to anything other than the same ten commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, which is supported by Exodus 34:1.

----------


## TER

> I disagree. There is nothing in the LXX that requires that the subject of the last clause be Moses and not God.


Right, as well as vice versa.  There is nothing in there that requires it to be God and not Moses.  The difficulty is that it says immediately in the previous verse that God instructed Moses to right things down.  

This is exactly an example of where the Church is needed, in order to understand the meanings of the verse, because taking the verse at face value in the original text, it is not clear who the 'he' is referring to.

----------


## Terry1

Well, here's what I just pulled out of the Septuagint.

 34:1 ¶ And the Lord said to Mosheh{gr.Moses}, Hew for thyself two tables of stone, as also the first were, and come up to me to the mountain; and I will write upon the tables the words, which were on the first tables, which thou brokest.

Like I said, I too remembered it as being Moses that wrote it, but being that Moses has a part in creating the tablets it's an easy thing to confuse going by memory of the scripture.

----------


## erowe1

> Right, as well as vice versa.  There is nothing in there that requires it to be God and not Moses.  The difficulty is that it says immediately in the previous verse that God instructed Moses to right things down.


But the things that God told Moses to write down are the commands given immediately before that.

Do you take the phrase "ten commandments" in 34:28 to refer to those? Many people do. I don't. It creates too many unnecessary problems that can all be avoided just by taking the "he" in 34:28 to be God, which is suggested by verse 1 anyway.




> This is exactly an example of where the Church is needed, in order to understand the meanings of the verse, because taking the verse at face value in the original text, it is not clear who the 'he' is referring to.


Really? Does the Church have an official interpretation of Exodus 34:28? If so, is this official interpretation written anywhere?

----------


## Terry1

> I think they are closely related. But that has to be qualified.
> 
> The covenant God made with Israel through Moses includes all of the hundreds of commands in the Pentateuch. And, according to multiple places in the Pentateuch, Moses wrote these words of the covenant. This includes the commands given in Exodus 34:10-26, which God, in verse 27, commanded Moses to write. Compare this with "the book of the covenant," which Moses wrote in Exodus 24:4 and 7. That book of the covenant apparently contained all of the commands in Exodus 21-23. But the special set of commands that are given at the beginning of that encounter in chapter 20, the ten commandments, are special and are like the heading of all the rest. Also compare this with the Law that Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 27:3; 31:9; etc. That seems to be talking about the whole set of laws given throughout the book of Deuteronomy, if I understand it correctly. This writing is also called the covenant in 29:1 and other places. But once again, the ten commandments, given in Deuteronomy 5 stand apart on their own as the epitome of the whole larger covenant, and they are called the covenant in 5:3.
> 
> The ten commandments, taken by themselves, stand for the whole covenant, and encompass everything else it says in summary form.
> 
> The commands that God gives Moses in Exodus 34:10-26 are part of the covenant that the ten commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 epitomize. God commands Moses to write those specific commands. But God himself writes the ten commandments. And the phrase "the ten commandments" in Exodus 34:28 doesn't refer to anything other than the same ten commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, which is supported by Exodus 34:1.


Moses wrote the Mosaic law, not God.  The mosaic law were the ceremonial laws associated with the Ten Commandments.  This is the only way that the Ten Commandments could be kept perfectly and to the letter was to do all of the Mosaic ceremonial law perfect and to the letter.  The Mosaic Law was a temporal law (the ceremonial part) to prove that only the Lord Yeshua could fulfill that law perfectly and to the letter.  The Ten Commandments is Gods perfect law and eternal, which was not the same as the Mosaic Law.

This is why the Mosaic Law was placed in the side of the Ark to prove it was a temporal law and a witness against mankind's failure to keep it perfectly and to the letter.



*Deuteronomy 31:

9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel.*
*
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.*

----------


## moostraks

> But the things that God told Moses to write down are the commands given immediately before that.
> 
> Do you take the phrase "ten commandments" in 34:28 to refer to those? Many people do. I don't. It creates too many unnecessary problems that can all be avoided just by taking the "he" in 34:28 to be God, which is suggested by verse 1 anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Does the Church have an official interpretation of Exodus 34:28? If so, is this official interpretation written anywhere?


I was just trying to dig around and am so far empty handed.  I just found a website that was discussing how the changes were based upon the failure of the people to be ready for the original 10 and their worship of the golden calf. So they got a revised version in their opinion.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I was just trying to dig around and am so far empty handed.  I just found a website that was discussing how the changes were based upon the failure of the people to be ready for the original 10 and their worship of the golden calf. So they got a revised version in their opinion.


So where to we find the revised version?   I would be interested in comparing them side by side.

----------


## erowe1

> So where to we find the revised version?   I would be interested in comparing them side by side.


It's what we've been talking about. Exodus 34:10-26.



> 10 And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord. For it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. 11 Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. 12 Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. 13 But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images 14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), 15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, 16 and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.
> 
> 17 “You shall make no molded gods for yourselves.
> 
> 18 “The Feast of Unleavened Bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, in the appointed time of the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.
> 
> 19 “All that open the womb are Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock, whether ox or sheep. 20 But the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb. And if you will not redeem him, then you shall break his neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.
> 
> “And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.
> ...

----------


## Terry1

> But the things that God told Moses to write down are the commands given immediately before that.
> 
> Do you take the phrase "ten commandments" in 34:28 to refer to those? Many people do. I don't. It creates too many unnecessary problems that can all be avoided just by taking the "he" in 34:28 to be God, which is suggested by verse 1 anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Does the Church have an official interpretation of Exodus 34:28? If so, is this official interpretation written anywhere?


erowe1---here's what I believe you're looking for right here in this scripture:

*Exodus 34:27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
*

What God is telling Moses here is write down the words for the Mosaic Law *AFTER THE TENOR*.  The TENOR God is speaking about are the Ten Commandments.  Moses was there for forty days and nights remember.  It didn't take him that long to receive the Ten Commandments---Moses was writing the Mosaic Law "AFTER THE TENOR" (the Ten Commandments) was already given to him.

----------


## TER

> Do you take the phrase "ten commandments" in 34:28 to refer to those? Many people do. I don't. It creates too many unnecessary problems that can all be avoided just by taking the "he" in 34:28 to be God, which is suggested by verse 1 anyway.


I used to, but am happy to be corrected.




> Really? Does the Church have an official interpretation of Exodus 34:28? If so, is this official interpretation written anywhere?


There is no official interpretation of the Scriptures, but rather the consensus of the Church Fathers which are handed down.  In the same vein, there is no official catechistic book like the RC have.  The only official proclamations are those done in the Holy Councils, historically done to counter heresies threatening the communion of the Church.  So to get the 'orthodox' intepretation of a particular verse requires to search the writings of the saints.  There are many saints who have written homilies and commentaries on Scripture, (St. John Chrysostom comes to mind), and these writings help the faithful to understand and intepret the Scriptures through the lens of the saints and those considered Fathers of the Church.  Needeless to say, it can sometimes be an arduous task!  But, the nice part is that if I go to my priest (or someone more knowledgable then me) and ask this question, they will almost certainly give me the same answer as another priest half way across the globe.  And if there was a disagreement in their response, then the solution would be to search the Fathers to learn what the orthodox understanding is.  This methods ensures the correct faith is passed down as well as unity in faith, for just as these priests do this, likewise the priests in the pasts did the same.

----------


## erowe1

> There is no official interpretation of the Scriptures, but rather the consensus of the Church Fathers which are handed down.


Where can I read this consensus interpretation of the Church that has been handed down?

Specifically for Exodus 34:28, but while we're at it, I'd love to know where I can read the verse-by-verse commentary of the Church's consensus interpretation of the whole Bible. I was not aware that such a thing existed.




> But, the nice part is that if I go to my priest (or someone more knowledgable then me) and ask this question, they will almost certainly give me the same answer as another priest half way across the globe.


I'm calling your bluff. What evidence do you have that this is the case?




> And if there was a disagreement in their response, then the solution would be to search the Fathers to learn what the orthodox understanding is. This methods ensures the correct faith is passed down as well as unity in faith, for just as these priests do this, likewise the priests in the pasts did the same.


If this method is available, then why aren't the results of it written down somewhere that's easily accessible? If there's one single interpretation of the antecedent of "he" in Exodus 34:28, then it should be easy enough for anyone to find that out without too much research.

But this gets back to my earlier question. Are you sure that there really is a single interpretation that the Church holds for the antecedent of "he" in Exodus 34:28? I highly doubt that there is (although I'm reasonably confident that the view I've espoused in this thread is the most common one held by traditional Jews and Christians throughout the centuries, prior to the rise of historical criticism of the Bible in the past 2-3 centuries).

Notice when you search the Church Fathers, as you mention here, and look for what they had to say about this or that passage of the Bible, they never say that the view they're giving is some interpretation that has been passed down to them through the Church. So your own view of how the Church provides us with the right interpretation of passages of the Bible is not supported by the very method by which you say the Church does that.

----------


## TER

> erowe1---here's what I believe you're looking for right here in this scripture:
> 
> *Exodus 34:27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
> *
> 
> What God is telling Moses here is write down the words for the Mosaic Law *AFTER THE TENOR*.  The TENOR God is speaking about are the Ten Commandments.  Moses was there for forty days and nights remember.  It didn't take him that long to receive the Ten Commandments---Moses was writing the Mosaic Law "AFTER THE TENOR" (the Ten Commandments) was already given to him.


Excellent observation Terry!

----------


## moostraks

> Where can I read this consensus interpretation of the Church that has been handed down?
> 
> Specifically for Exodus 34:28, but while we're at it, I'd love to know where I can read the verse-by-verse commentary of the Church's consensus interpretation of the whole Bible. I was not aware that such a thing existed.



Well in light of not having an easy go with a statement on chapter 34 from the Church fathers, I have also expanded to see what Jewish tradition has been but not much luck there yet for a consensus from which to use as a search aid. Amazing the rat holes you can run down on something that seems like it really shouldn't be that complex an issue.

----------


## Terry1

> Excellent observation Terry!


Which is basically what you already said in post #440.

----------


## Dr.3D

> It's what we've been talking about. Exodus 34:10-26.


I can't buy that. because it doesn't match Deuteronomy 5:1-21.

Both Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:1-21 match.

----------


## erowe1

> I can't buy that. because it doesn't match Deuteronomy 5:1-21.
> 
> Both Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:1-21 match.


Exactly.

----------


## TER

> Where can I read this consensus interpretation of the Church that has been handed down?
> 
> Specifically for Exodus 34:28, but while we're at it, I'd love to know where I can read the verse-by-verse commentary of the Church's consensus interpretation of the whole Bible. I was not aware that such a thing existed.


Pick up a modern book on Orthodox dogmatics, and you will find the consensus of the Patristic thought considered to be orthodox.  What makes the book Orthodox is the very fact that it is in the consensus of the Patristic teachings, otherwise it is cast aside and called out by the faithful.  For example, if someone today writes a certain text about the Church's teachings and includes in it innovative additions to the faith of the Fathers, it is then the role of the laity and the heirarchy to warn the faithful about these writings.  This happens today.  For example, Bishop Kallistos is a brilliant theologian, but he has been called out by others for a handful of unorthodox teachings.  This is the checks and balances needed to carry on the deposit of faith undefiled.  

As for particular commentary on Scripture, I would recommend St. John Chrysostom' commentary of the New Testament which are considered orthodox.  There are others to which I will search for online and provide you links.  Right now I am at my brother's house and he is giving me grief for being on the ipad again!

----------


## Nang

Exodus 34:10-28 may be a _periscope_; a portion that starts from a passage, gives a panorama of detail, ending where it began . . . There are many of these in the Scriptures.

The Ten Commandments were given verbally prior to these occasions; here they came down in the hands of Moses recorded and written by the finger of God.

Both times there were two tablets written on both sides, which would indicate both the commandments and the covenant were provided as the testimony of God both times.  Which indicates the second account is parallel to the first account, with more detail.

Interesting passage, but as I shared earlier, I think the most important thing about all of this, is how it is spiritualized in II Corinthians 3:1-18 to apply to N.T. saints.

----------


## erowe1

> Pick up a modern book on Orthodox dogmatics, and you will find the consensus of the Patristic thought considered to be orthodox.


But you will not find that this provides us with a method to decide what the antecedent of "he" is in Exodus 34:28.

That may be the impression you were given by your priest. I don't know. I do encounter Catholics all the time who seem to think that their Church is supposed to give them the right interpretation of every passage of the Bible. But it is not the case. Neither their church nor yours makes any claim of doing that. In the end, they're in the same position Protestants are when it comes to figuring out what the antecedent of "he" in Exodus 34:28 is.




> As for particular commentary on Scripture, I would recommend St. John Chrysostom' commentary of the New Testament which are considered orthodox.  There are others to which I will search for online and provide you links.  Right now I am at my brother's house and he is giving me grief for being on the ipad again!


What you'll find when you actually read these commentaries and compare them is that their interpretations of various verses do not follow the kind of consensus that you seem to think they do. They are individuals with individually differing interpretations, just like you and I are. Neither Chrysostom's commentaries, nor any others of the Church fathers, make any claim to be passing down some oral tradition of what the Church's consensus interpretation is of any given passage.

----------


## TER

> Where can I read this consensus interpretation of the Church that has been handed down?
> 
> Specifically for Exodus 34:28, but while we're at it, I'd love to know where I can read the verse-by-verse commentary of the Church's consensus interpretation of the whole Bible. I was not aware that such a thing existed.
> 
> 
> I'm calling your bluff. What evidence do you have that this is the case?
> 
> 
> If this method is available, then why aren't the results of it written down somewhere that's easily accessible? If there's one single interpretation of the antecedent of "he" in Exodus 34:28, then it should be easy enough for anyone to find that out without too much research.
> ...


Going to eat dinner now, and this will need some explanation.  Will answer later.  The short version is, that if someone writes or says something which is not supported by the Fathers who came before them, then it is suspect and cast aside.  This is where antiquity, consensus, and catholicity come into play with regards to the passing of the teachings of the faith.

----------


## Terry1

[QUOTE]


> But you will not find that this provides us with a method to decide what the antecedent of "he" is in Exodus 34:28.
> 
> That may be the impression you were given by your priest. I don't know. I do encounter Catholics all the time who seem to think that their Church is supposed to give them the right interpretation of every passage of the Bible. But it is not the case. Neither their church nor yours makes any claim of doing that. In the end, they're in the same position Protestants are when it comes to figuring out what the antecedent of "he" in Exodus 34:28 is


.

*28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.*

"he" is referring to Moses who was writing the text of the OLD COVENANT/LAW OF MOSES. This was how they were to keep the ceremonial laws associated with the same Ten Commandments, but they are not one and the same law. These were the ceremonial laws of the Ten Commandments of God.  These were temporal laws and ceremonies because Jesus fulfilled the WHOLE LAW HIMSELF.

The Ten Commandments is God's perfect and eternal law.  The Mosaic law was a temporal law that served one purpose and that was to prove to mankind that they were unable to keep the ceremonies and rituals perfectly and to the letter which is what the Ten Commandments required to obtain righteousness under that Mosaic Law.  

The Mosaic Law is the very testimony to the fact that no man can keep perfectly God's perfect law without the savior.  Hence the Mosaic ceremonial laws ended when Christ fulfilled them for mankind proving that the Ten Commandments now written upon the hearts of believers via the Holy Spirit keep them through faith and obedience to that same Holy Spirit and not the dead curse of the old law.  These are called "works of faith" because we spiritually hear and obey and we do this willingly as a matter of choice.

----------


## Nang

[QUOTE=Terry1;5464918]


> .
> 
> *28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.*
> 
> "he" is referring to Moses who was writing the text of the OLD COVENANT/LAW OF MOSES. This was how they were to keep the ceremonial laws associated with the same Ten Commandments, but they are not one and the same law. These were the ceremonial laws of the Ten Commandments of God.  These were temporal laws and ceremonies because Jesus fulfilled the WHOLE LAW HIMSELF.
> 
> The Ten Commandments is God's perfect and eternal law.  The Mosaic law was a temporal law that served one purpose and that was to prove to mankind that they were unable to keep the ceremonies and rituals perfectly and to the letter which is what the Ten Commandments required to obtain righteousness under that Mosaic Law.  
> 
> The Mosaic Law is the very testimony to the fact that no man can keep perfectly God's perfect law without the savior.  Hence the Mosaic ceremonial laws ended when Christ fulfilled them for mankind proving that the Ten Commandments now written upon the hearts of believers via the Holy Spirit keep them through faith and obedience to that same Holy Spirit and not the dead curse of the old law.  These are called "works of faith" because we spiritually hear and obey and we do this willingly as a matter of choice.


The eternal principles of the Decalogue are reiterated in the covenant recorded in vss 10-26.  This covenant contains both moral and ceremonial laws, with the purpose of providing the "tenor" (legal principle) of God's will, purpose, and instruction for His people.  I think it is a mistake to right off this portion of scripture as "the dead curse of the old law." 

To do so, is Antinomianism.

These lawful instructions are covenant promises, not a curse.

----------


## Terry1

> The eternal principles of the Decalogue are reiterated in the covenant recorded in vss 10-26.  This covenant contains both moral and ceremonial laws, with the purpose of providing the "tenor" (legal principle) of God's will, purpose, and instruction for His people.  I think it is a mistake to right off this portion of scripture as "the dead curse of the old law." 
> 
> To do so, is Antinomianism.
> 
> These lawful instructions are covenant promises, not a curse.


 

The old Mosaic ceremonial law died with Jesus on that cross, if that wasn't so, then the world would still be cursed by sin and death with no HOPE of eternal life at all.

The Old Mosaic Law is a curse to any who attempt to live by it.  Why do you think it was placed in the side of the Ark and said it was a witness against mankind.  It could not be placed in the center of the Ark with the Ten Commandments for a good reason.  Now you figure that one out.

*Galatians 3:10 
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:13 
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
*

----------


## Nang

> The old Mosaic ceremonial law died with Jesus on that cross, if that wasn't so, then the world would still be cursed by sin and death with no HOPE of eternal life at all.



With all due respect, this portion of scripture is NOT the ceremonial law, but Covenant from God.  Exodus 34:10, 27.

For example, Exodus 34:14 is a reiteration of Exodus 20:1-2.  The command to worship only God, is an eternal command and promise fulfilled in the righteous works of Jesus Christ.

This legal principle and promise has never died.  

This moral principle and promise is not a curse.

You are confusing and convoluting facts  . . . unfortunately it seems, to fit your own faulty presuppositions.

----------


## Terry1

> With all due respect, this portion of scripture is NOT the ceremonial law, but Covenant from God.  Exodus 34:10, 27.
> 
> For example, Exodus 34:14 is a reiteration of Exodus 20:1-2.  The command to worship only God, is an eternal command and promise fulfilled in the righteous works of Jesus Christ.
> 
> This legal principle and promise has never died.  
> 
> This moral principle and promise is not a curse.
> 
> You are confusing and convoluting facts  . . . unfortunately it seems, to fit your own faulty presuppositions.


With all due respect---Exodus 34: is all about Moses obtaining the tablets with the Ten Commandments and writing the Mosaic covenant law on Mt. Sinai.  

There are some Levitical laws and feasts that were meant to be kept forever, but only by grace and through faith and not through the dead works of the old Mosaic law.

And this is why I keep saying that Calvinists, along with some other legalistic doctrines-- do not understand the difference between these two laws and is where most of their confusion lies.

----------


## Nang

> The Old Mosaic Law is a curse to any who attempt to live by it.  Why do you think it was placed in the side of the Ark and said it was a witness against mankind.  It could not be placed in the center of the Ark with the Ten Commandments for a good reason.  Now you figure that one out.
> 
> 
> 
> *Galatians 3:10 
> For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
> 
> Galatians 3:13 
> Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
> *



Different book; different time; delivered to the tribal elders and officers only.  Deuteronomy 31:24-26

Does not pertain to the present discussion.

----------


## Terry1

> Different book; different time; delivered to the tribal elders and officers only.  Deuteronomy 31:24-26
> 
> Does not pertain to the present discussion.


This is what you *just* said here:




> Posted by Nang View Post 
> 
>  The eternal principles of the Decalogue are reiterated in the covenant recorded in vss 10-26. This covenant contains both moral and ceremonial laws, with the purpose of providing the "tenor" (legal principle) of God's will, purpose, and instruction for His people. I think it is a mistake to right off this portion of scripture as "the dead curse of the old law." 
> 
>  To do so, is Antinomianism.
> 
> *These lawful instructions are covenant promises, not a curse*


And I just posted scripture to show you that if these laws are not done by grace and through faith, that they are a "curse" to mankind.  Now, there is a spiritual way we have been instructed to do everything under the New Covenant of grace through faith.  And this is why Paul tells us in Romans 14:---which just so happens to and seems to be the message of the DAY here:

*1Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One persons faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to judge someone elses servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
*

----------


## Nang

> This is what you *just* said here:
> 
> 
> 
> And I just posted scripture to show you that if these laws are not done by grace and through faith, that they are a "curse" to mankind.  Now, there is a spiritual way we have been instructed to do everything under the New Covenant of grace through faith.  And this is why Paul tells us in Romans 14:---which just so happens to and seems to be the message of the DAY here:
> 
> *1Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
> 
> 5One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
> *



No further comment . . . this is too ridiculous and off track.

----------


## Terry1

> No further comment . . . this is too ridiculous and off track.


What's "off track" is believing that we're supposed to practice Old Covenant law the same way under the New Covenant of grace through faith.  Paul tells you---it doesn't matter if it's done in love, honor and respect to the Lord and that God is able to make that believer stand--even if what they're doing isn't scripturally correct.  Because we all see through the glass darkly in this life and no one's got it perfectly right---no one.  

So all of this debate over one who practices tradition in respect and honor to God is no less an offense than someone who believes they shouldn't do anything at all, which is far more dangerous because there's no evidence of one's fruit in such a case or that they're answering their calling in obedience to the HOly Spirit---which is also called a "work of faith".

IMO, an added work is far less offensive to God than none at all.

----------


## Nang

> What's "off track" is believing that we're supposed to practice Old Covenant law the same way under the New Covenant of grace through faith.  Paul tells you---it doesn't matter if it's done in love, honor and respect to the Lord and that God is able to make that believer stand--even if what they're doing isn't scripturally correct.  Because we all see through the glass darkly in this life and no one's got it perfectly right---no one.  
> 
> So all of this debate over one who practices tradition in respect and honor to God is no less an offense than someone who believes they shouldn't do anything at all, which is far more dangerous because there's no evidence of one's fruit in such a case or that they're answering their calling in obedience to the HOly Spirit---which is also called a "work of faith".
> 
> IMO, an added work is far less offensive to God than none at all.


You are disruptive . . . and drag every thread you enter, back to the only mantra you know.

Something you have invented, that you call the "work of faith."

No such thing.

*It is Jesus Christ who sinlessly kept all the Law, and it is Jesus Christ who performs all Covenant, and it is Jesus Christ who died so that His righteousness might be imputed to man.*

When God wrote the Law on Mt. Sinai, (which we are presently trying to _objectlvely_ discuss) He was giving covenant promise of these facts.

IOW's, as we study all of scripture, we should be looking for the purposes and works of Jesus Christ, and not our own.  We should read with Christ-centered eyes, *not with self-centered intentions.
*

----------


## Dr.3D

Wow, this is all so confusing, I'm just glad I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems me from my sins.   If any of the rest of this was necessary for my salvation, I wouldn't know what to do.

----------


## Terry1

> You are disruptive . . . and drag every thread you enter, back to the only mantra you know.
> 
> Something you have invented, that you call the "work of faith."
> 
> No such thing.


Now that's something you'll have to argue with the Apostle Paul over---not me.  He said it---I understand it and believe it.


*1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
*
*2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

*






> *It is Jesus Christ who sinlessly kept all the Law, and it is Jesus Christ who performs all Covenant, and it is Jesus Christ who died so that His righteousness might be imputed to man.*
> 
> When God wrote the Law on Mt. Sinai, (which we are presently trying to _objectlvely_ discuss) He was giving covenant promise of these facts.
> 
> IOW's, as we study all of scripture, we should be looking for the purposes and works of Jesus Christ, and not our own.  We should read with Christ-centered eyes, *not with self-centered intentions.
> *


Is this something that you practice?

----------


## moostraks

> Wow, this is all so confusing, I'm just glad I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems me from my sins.   If any of the rest of this was necessary for my salvation, I wouldn't know what to do.


 so true...

----------


## Nang

> Wow, this is all so confusing, I'm just glad I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems me from my sins.   If any of the rest of this was necessary for my salvation, I wouldn't know what to do.



That is what is so frustrating . . . *the truth of God is simply found by faith in Christ and His works* . . . not in our own!!

The enemy tries to make truth confusing, to distract us from this absolute gospel fact.

----------


## Nang

> Is this something that you practice?


Before God, I can unequivocally testify, *yes.*

In fact, that is my entire approach to bible study . . . I search for knowledge of Jesus Christ, and His righteousness and promises, from every word spoken by God.

Matthew 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3

Solus Christos!

Sola Scriptura!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wow, this is all so confusing, I'm just glad I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems me from my sins.   If any of the rest of this was necessary for my salvation, I wouldn't know what to do.


You're right that all the confusing stuff invented by reformers and others is confusing and unnecessary.  However, it is important to remember that salvation is a lifelong process.  It's "running the race", as the apostle said.  Fortunately, our brothers and sisters in Christ as well as the Church are here to help us along the way.

----------


## erowe1

> You're right that all the confusing stuff invented by reformers and others is confusing and unnecessary.


Like?

The opinion he expressed, which you say he's right about, is very much in line with the reformers, in contrast to some church's lists of hundreds and hundreds of dogmas that are not mentioned in the Bible and that if you depart from them you're anathematized.

What I was saying about Exodus 34 definitely didn't originate with the Reformers, as you can see from what Gegory of Nyssa said in his _Life of Moses._

----------


## Terry1

> That is what is so frustrating . . . *the truth of God is simply found by faith in Christ and His works* . . . not in our own!!
> 
> The enemy tries to make truth confusing, to distract us from this absolute gospel fact.


What if those you *thought were your "enemy" were in reality--your truest friends in Christ?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Like?
> 
> The opinion he expressed, which you say he's right about, is very much in line with the reformers, in contrast to some church's lists of hundreds and hundreds of dogmas that are not mentioned in the Bible and that if you depart from them you're anathematized.
> 
> What I was saying about Exodus 34 definitely didn't originate with the Reformers, as you can see from what Gegory of Nyssa said in his _Life of Moses._


Calvinism, for example, is a tightly argued, "rationalistic" (as some call it) view.  To _me_,it's unnecessarily complicated-as we could expect from a lawyer like Calvin.  Though there are hundreds of dogmas in the Orthodox church, they are simple enough that anyone can understand them by rote memorization and relatively light study.  If you think Orthodoxy is more complicated, we'll have to agree to disagree.

----------


## Nang

> What if those you *thought were your "enemy" were in reality--your truest friends in Christ?


I made no reference to "my" enemies. 

 I speak of the spiritual enemies of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  (Ephesians 6:10-20)

----------


## RJB

> Wow, this is all so confusing, I'm just glad I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems me from my sins.   If any of the rest of this was necessary for my salvation, I wouldn't know what to do.


Brilliant post.  ALL of us involved in these arguments seem to think you are complimenting us and scolding an opponent, yet not seeing our own guilt or getting your point.  

LOL  You should start a thread with so everyone (me included) can argue over this new revelation.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Brilliant post.  ALL of us involved in these arguments seem to think you are complimenting us and scolding an opponent, yet not seeing our own guilt or getting your point.  
> *
> LOL  You should start a thread with so everyone can argue over this new revelation*.


lulz

----------


## Kevin007

> You're right that all the confusing stuff invented by reformers and others is confusing and unnecessary.  However, it is important to remember that salvation is a lifelong process.  It's "running the race", as the apostle said.  Fortunately, our brothers and sisters in Christ as well as the Church are here to help us along the way.


salvation is not a life long process. It happens at a person's conversion. I think you meant the Catholics added stuff, like thousands of pages in the Catechism to the Bible.

----------


## Kevin007

Why would a Church that claims to find its source and continuation in the apostles say so many things that oppose and contradict the Bible whom the apostles and prophets wrote?

----------


## Kevin007

> Brilliant post.  ALL of us involved in these arguments seem to think you are complimenting us and scolding an opponent, yet not seeing our own guilt or getting your point.  
> 
> LOL  You should start a thread with so everyone (me included) can argue over this new revelation.


DR3D sounds like a reformer, salvation by faith alone in Jesus.

----------


## Kevin007

> Calvinism, for example, is a tightly argued, "rationalistic" (as some call it) view.  To _me_,it's unnecessarily complicated-as we could expect from a lawyer like Calvin.  Though there are hundreds of dogmas in the Orthodox church, they are simple enough that anyone can understand them by rote memorization and relatively light study.  If you think Orthodoxy is more complicated, we'll have to agree to disagree.


is it as complicated as the Catechism? For example- mixing the OC with the NC?


 Instead of  being regenerated by the word RC have a completely different approach to salvation. They combine elements from the Old Testament (like the priesthood, rituals etc.), as the means of grace is dispensed by the priest and through the church.

RC Catechism in Canon 4 “_If anyone shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema_.”

VS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS; “_Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit ….having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever_” (1 Peter 1:22-23).

----------


## RJB

> DR3D sounds like a reformer, salvation by faith alone in Jesus.


I think he seems like a guy with his head on straight who thinks we are ALL a bunch of weirdoes LOL

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> salvation is not a life long process. It happens at a person's conversion. I think you meant the Catholics added stuff, like thousands of pages in the Catechism to the Bible.


Yes, it is a lifelong process.  You cannot "buy" salvation through a sacremement, conversion, tithes, etc.  

"Running the race" comes from St Paul.  


> Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.


The view that salvation occurrs almost magically at conversion and/or baptism by immersion is a Baptist thing, IIRC.  It's not biblical or Church tradition.

ETA:



> Therefore, bretheren, be even more dilligent to make your call and election sure, *for if you do these things* you will never stumble, for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Sovior Jesus Christ.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> is it as complicated as the Catechism? For example- mixing the OC with the NC?
> 
> 
>  Instead of  being regenerated by the word RC have a completely different approach to salvation. They combine elements from the Old Testament (like the priesthood, rituals etc.), as the means of grace is dispensed by the priest and through the church.
> 
> RC Catechism in Canon 4 “_If anyone shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema_.”
> 
> VS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS; “_Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit ….having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever_” (1 Peter 1:22-23).


I don't know, as I haven't read the Catechism.  I am a bit familiar with Scholasticism, though.  It is in error with its obsession WRT detail in following every "jot and tittle" (to borrow a very old-fashioned colloquialism) that can be found.

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, it is a lifelong process.  You cannot "buy" salvation through a sacremement, conversion, tithes, etc.  
> 
> "Running the race" comes from St Paul.  
> 
> The view that salvation occurrs almost magically at conversion and/or baptism by immersion is a Baptist thing, IIRC.  It's not biblical or Church tradition.


Paul is not talking about salvation.

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, it is a lifelong process. * You cannot "buy" salvation* through a sacremement, conversion, tithes, etc.  
> 
> "Running the race" comes from St Paul.  
> 
> The view that salvation occurrs almost magically at conversion and/or baptism by immersion is a Baptist thing, IIRC.  It's not biblical or Church tradition.


salvation is a gift, not a process. Can you show me where salvation is a process? I can show you salvation comes in an INSTANT when someone accepts Jesus as their personal Savior though...

The jailer cried out to Paul this question. "What must I do to be saved? Paul said," *believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will* be saved."

----------


## Dr.3D

One could look at it in this way.....



> _NRS_ *Matthew 20:1-16* "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.  _2_ After agreeing with the laborers for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.  _3_ When he went out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace;  _4_ and he said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.  _5_ When he went out again about noon and about three o'clock, he did the same.  _6_ And about five o'clock he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, 'Why are you standing here idle all day?'  _7_ They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard.'  _8_ When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, 'Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.'  _9_ When those hired about five o'clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage.  _10_ Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage.  _11_ And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner,  _12_ saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.'  _13_ But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?  _14_ Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you.  _15_ Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?'  _16_ So the last will be first, and the first will be last."


Some will find it a life long process, while others may find it takes much less time.   The thing is, we shouldn't be jealous about those who don't find it necessary to spend as much time as we do.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> One could look at it in this way.....
> 
> 
> Some will find it a life long process, while others may find it takes much less time.   The thing is, we shouldn't be jealous about those who don't find it necessary to spend as much time as we do.


That quote from Matthew doesn't prove your claim.  The "day" refers to both a single person's entire life and all history.  Parables are not literal-they are pearls of wisdom in which we find truth.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Paul is not talking about salvation.


Yes he is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> salvation is a gift, not a process. Can you show me where salvation is a process? I can show you salvation comes in an INSTANT when someone accepts Jesus as their personal Savior though...
> 
> The jailer cried out to Paul this question. "What must I do to be saved? Paul said," *believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will* be saved."


See my edit to the post you quoted.  And WRT Paul, he had a specific process in mind when he said "believe".  In Romans 1:5, he says 


> Through Him we have received grace and apostleship *for obedience to the faith* among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jeus Christ


Pauline theology is really nuanced and complicated.  We could spend many moons going back and forth verse for verse on this.  The overwhelming evidence, IMO, and in Church tradition suggests that salvation is a lifetime process.

----------


## Dr.3D

Whew, here we go getting all complicated again.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That quote from Matthew doesn't prove your claim.  The "day" refers to both a single person's entire life and all history.  Parables are not literal-they are pearls of wisdom in which we find truth.


What truth did you find in this parable?

----------


## TER

Okay, so I just spent the last 3 hours researching the question about who is being addressed as the person who wrote the second set of stone tablets.  Please bear with me!

As pointed out,  Deuteronomy 5:1-21 confirms that the one who wrote the tablets is indeed God.  Also, from my studying researching my Orthodox resources, they indeed confirm that it is God Who wrote the second set of tablets.  My error was in my misinterpreting the verse, particularly in Exodus 34:27-28, as the wording is tricky.  In several English translations, it gives the strong impression that the 'he' is Moses.  For example:

*Authorized King James Version:*




> 27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. 28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


*English Standard Version*




> 27 And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments


*New Standard American*




> 27 Then the Lord said to Moses, Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.


*New Standard Revised*




> 27 The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28 He was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


*Orthodox Jewish Bible*




> 27 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Write thou these devarim; for according to these devarim I have cut a brit with thee and with Yisroel. 28 And he was there with Hashem arbaim yom and arbaim lailah; he did neither eat lechem, nor drink mayim. And he wrote upon the Luchot the Divrei HaBrit (Words of the Covenant), the Aseres Hadevarim (Ten Commandments)



You get the point...  This seems to be the most common English translation from my research, namely small h 'he' following the sentence stating he (Moses) did not eat or drink.  Probably the source of my confusion.

The *NKJV,* which is the version used in most modern Orthodox Bibles (when the canonical Septuagint is not used) is:




> 27 Then the Lord said to Moses, Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And *He* wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.


...which clearly defines God as the one Who wrote on the tablets.

Interestingly, the *New Century Version* has:




> 27 Then the Lord said to Moses, Write down these words, because with these words I have made an agreement with you and Israel.  28 Moses stayed there with the Lord forty days and forty nights, and during that time he did not eat food or drink water. And *Moses* wrote the words of the Agreementthe Ten Commandmentson the stone tablets.


I don't know much about this version, but this one gives the complete opposite meaning from the NKJV.  

So there are different interpretation that can be taken from the same writings.  This, again, is a fine example of the role of the Church in providing the correct interpretation.  Of course, the fact that Deuteronomy later confirms the interpretation that God wrote them makes it easy in this instance.  This is likely the reason why there is unanimous consent with this interpretation (apart from people who have erred like myself).  This is also likely why there is no controversy anywhere in the writings of the Fathers regarding the author and writer of the Decalogue on the second set of tablets.  But, we can use this as an example anyway in order to answer erowe's questions addressed to me earlier.

As pointed out by him earlier, St. Gregory of Nyssa, the early Father of the Church who wrote most extensively about Moses in his epic 'The Life of Moses', clearly proclaims the orthodox faith of the Church, namely that it was God who wrote on the second tablets after Moses prepared them.  Thus, if he says it, and there is consensus and unanimity with this interpretation (which seems to be the case in the research I have done tonight in the various writings of Orthodox authors and in the writings of the Church Fathers who are the ones the Orthodox authors have received their faith; in this particular instance I found writings by St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom), then there is no reason for me to question what the correct interpretation is.  The Church has already given the correct interpretation and I humbly submit to the wisdom of the Church and have now corrected my error.  I thank everyone for this because until today, I had an incorrect belief and understanding.  Thank you again!

----------


## TER

> But you will not find that this provides us with a method to decide what the antecedent of "he" is in Exodus 34:28.
> 
> That may be the impression you were given by your priest. I don't know. I do encounter Catholics all the time who seem to think that their Church is supposed to give them the right interpretation of every passage of the Bible. But it is not the case. Neither their church nor yours makes any claim of doing that. In the end, they're in the same position Protestants are when it comes to figuring out what the antecedent of "he" in Exodus 34:28 is.


The method is what I just described above.  I had an interpretation which I thought was correct and made sense to me.  I depended on my logical reading of the verse in question.  (I know you will say that Deuteronomy confirms it, and that the Scriptures proved the Scriptures, but let us pretend there was no verse in Deuteronomy to confirm it for the sake of this argument).

I had an interpretation which I formulated with the knowledge I have gained.  I realized when thinking about it closer (that is, after being confronted with it!) that I don't recall ever reading anything like that before in my readings of the Church Fathers and in Orthodox commentary.  In fact, admittedly, _in my pride_, I even thought I figured out something that others before me may have missed!  Even saints of the Church!  (this should have sounded off warning bells and red alarms, but again, on account of my pride, I thought I learned something others did not put together.  So I either dulled the bells to mute or just ignored them completely.  This is a weakness of mine which I struggle with.  Things are much better when I allow the warning bells to go off and act on them).

So when I was rightly confronted about it by Nang and then you, I (finally) did what I should have done in the beginning and searched out the Scriptures better as well as the Patristic witness, and sure enough, the orthodox teaching and faith was the one you and Nang had described and I was in error.

Therefore, I have changed my mind to align with the teachings of the Church.  I did this so that I would be in one mind, one faith, one spirit and one communion with the faithful who are around me, with the faithful who have come before me, and with the faithful who will come after me, all the way until the Last Day when the Bridegroom will come to unite with His Bride which is the Church.  I have submitted my will and my mind to the Body of Christ so that I may worthily partake of the Holy Eucharist which is the binding grace which visibly and mystically holds the unity of the faith together.  So that, now being corrected, I might have heeded the warning of St. Paul, examined myself, and appropriately corrected myself knowing:




> "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body." (1 Cor 11:27-29)


In this way, by conforming myself to the teachings of the teachers and fathers before me, I may be worthy to call myself and remain a member in the one body.  St. Paul reminds us that:  




> "Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17)


Thus demonstrating that the Eucharist, (the Bread and Manna from Heaven, the Body and Blood of Christ), is the bedrock of the faith, since in it, by it, and through it, we unite ourselves spiritually and physically in one mind and one Spirit, indeed becoming one body, the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

In this way the Church since the beginning, in holding the common "cup of the Lord" (1 Cor 10:28) as the binding seal and unity of the faith, has endured and survived and passed on the deposit of faith given to her by the Apostles, so that the pious believer even now can also become of one mind with the early Church and the Fathers before them, confirming the instructions of the Apostles that:




> For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. (1 Cor 11:26)


This why the unity of the faith is centered around the same thing which is the center of the worship of God, namely the Holy Eucharist, the sacrament initiated by Christ the night before He was crucified and faithfully carried out by His Apostles after Him continuously and in one faith for these past 2000 years and beyond.

----------


## TER

> Whew, here we go getting all complicated again.


It is not complicated my friend.  Humility and submitting one's mind and will to the Church (as the Scriptures teach) is not complicated, though it can be difficult for sure.  Luckily, we live in a time and in a place where the only great obstacles in finding the Church and doing so remains the pride and fears in our own mind.  But when this is overcome, then the fullness of the faith, the treasures of the Church, and the promises of the Lord are not only manifest, but experienced and indeed lived in this world and apart of it.  One foot in the world, the other in the eternal Kingdom of God by His grace.

----------


## Kevin007

> The method is what I just described above.  I had an interpretation which I thought was correct and made sense to me.  I depended on my logical reading of the verse in question.  (I know you will say that Deuteronomy confirms it, and that the Scriptures proved the Scriptures, but let us pretend there was not verse in Deuteronomy to confirm it for the sake of this argument).
> 
> I had an interpretation which I formulated with the knowledge I have gained.  I realized when thinking about it closer (that is, after being confronted with it!) that I don't recall ever reading anything like that before in my readings of the Church Fathers and in Orthodox commentary.  In fact, admittedly, _in my pride_, I even thought I figured out something that others before me may have missed!  (this should have sounded off warning bells and red alarms, but again, on account of my pride, I thought I learned something others did not put together.  So I either dulled the bells to mute or just ignored them completely.  This is a weakness of mine which I struggle with.  Things are much better when I allow the warning bells to go off and act on them).
> 
> So when I was rightly confronted about it by Nang and then yourself, I (finally) did what I should have done in the beginning and searched out the Scriptures better as well as the Patristic witness, and sure enough, the orthodox teaching and faith was the one you and Nang had described and I was in error.
> 
> Therefore, I have changed my mind to align with the teachings of the Church so that I would be in one mind, one faith, one spirit and one communion with the faithful who are around me, with the faithful who have come before me, and with the faithful who will come after me, all the way until the Last Day when the Bridegroom will come to unite with the Bride which is the Church.  I have submitted my will and my mind to the Body of Christ so that I may worthily partake of the Holy Eucharist which is the binding grace which visibly and mystically holds the unity of the faith together.  So that, now being corrected, I might now examine myself and heed the warning of St. Paul:
> 
> 
> ...


1 Cor 10:28- let us look at that.

----------


## TER

> 1 Cor 10:28- let us look at that.


If nothing I wrote above made any sense to you, then nothing more I write will either, since it is obvious we have a very different framework in what it means to be members of one body and what it means to remain in one baptism, one mind, and one faith.  In fact, the very difference we have with regards to the Holy Eucharist means we will never likely be close to really understanding one another with regards to the Christian faith.  It would be like I was talking Chinese and you a different language.

Anyway, I am going to sleep now cause I have work in the am, but feel free to express your opinion if you like.

----------


## Dr.3D

> salvation is a gift, not a process. Can you show me where salvation is a process? I can show you salvation comes in an INSTANT when someone accepts Jesus as their personal Savior though...
> 
> The jailer cried out to Paul this question. "What must I do to be saved? Paul said," *believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will* be saved."


Yes, it's just that simple.   Those who wish to make it more complicated than that are doing the same thing the Pharisees did.

----------


## Dr.3D

> It is not complicated my friend.  Humility and submitting one's mind and will to the Church (as the Scriptures teach) is not complicated, though it can be difficult for sure.  Luckily, we live in a time and in a place where the only great obstacles in finding the Church and doing so remains the pride and fears in our own mind.  But when this is overcome, then the fullness of the faith, the treasures of the Church, and the promises of the Lord are not only manifest, but experienced and indeed lived in this world and apart of it.  One foot in the world, the other in the eternal Kingdom of God by His grace.


I'm well aware of how complicated it is.   Please see my post here.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, it's just that simple.   Those who wish to make it more complicated than that are doing the same thing the Pharisees did.


Incorrect.  See #491 above^^

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, it is a lifelong process.  You cannot "buy" salvation through a sacremement, conversion, tithes, etc.  
> 
> "Running the race" comes from St Paul.  
> 
> The view* that salvation occurrs almost magically at conversion and/or baptism by immersion* is a Baptist thing, IIRC.  It's not biblical or Church tradition.
> 
> ETA:


first off Baptists don't believe in salvation BY BEING put in water. Baptist's believe that we are born again when the HS comes and indwells in us the moment salvation occurs, in an instant. God does not need "magic" to do anything. NT Believers are baptized by the HS, and they are then baptized in water as a public confession of an inward reality and change that has taken place. We follow Jesus' teachings. When we come out of the water, it symbolizes the NEW BIRTH to our fellow congregation.


Salvation is instant, but the process of living a holy life is sanctification. *SALVATION IS A MIRACLE, NOT A METHOD!*

----------


## TER

Dr.3d, saw your post and had to respond...





> Yes, it's just that simple.   Those who wish to make it more complicated than that are doing the same thing the Pharisees did.


  So establishing a Church with doctrines equates with the pride of the Pharisees?  

So you think doctrines don't matter?  Do you think St. Paul felt that way?  Doesn't seem that way to me.

Was his response in his epistles to the faithful 'just believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems you from your sins'?  He could have saved a lot of time, energy and parchment simply sending out that little memo.  But, unfortunately, just believing this (which BTW the demons believe as well) apparently isn't enough.

When the issue with regards with circumcision happened in Acts, should the Apostles just have said "hey guys, the faith is really simple, and this kind of stuff it doesn't matter, just believe that Jesus died for your sins, and nothing else matters!"  

When Paul exhorts his readers with pastoral care and guidance on instructions on how to live and understand the Way they were to live, did he just say "just have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems your sins" and there is nothing more that is necessary?  Everything will be a okay?

How about the Arians, the Nestorians, and all the other heretics who distorted (by use of Scripture no less) the understanding of Who Christ is.  They too also believed that Christ died for their sins and that He is the Son of God.  Should the rest of the Church just said,  ah, it doesn't matter.  Here, come over and share the Holy Eucharist and these little topics of Who Christ is and how He saves us isn't really that important.  Just believe He died for your sins!  What could possibly go wrong?  A little heresy never hurt anybody!

Dr.3D, I am not trying to be condescending, because I know you are a wise man, but I am trying to make a point that doctrine DOES matter, and the necessary understanding of the Apostolic faith DOES matter, so when I see you try to simply the Christian faith by taking one verse from Scripture and ignoring the rest, I think it should be debated. 

You mention the verse



> "The jailer cried out to Paul this question. "What must I do to be saved? Paul said," believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."


But tell me, what does "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" mean?  Perhaps you think it is as simple as 'believe He is the Son of God"?  Well, we know the demons know that, and they are not saved, so it can't be that.  Or 'believe He died for your sins'?  Well, the demons know that too, as did all the heretics who distorted the Christian faith, so it can't be that either. 

 Have you thought that maybe 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' might mean something more 'active', something having to do with obedience and trust and commitment and *gasp* self-denial and humility and submission?

Simplifying (in fact, dumbing down) the teachings of Christ and the Apostles to a simple "just have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems your sins" may be enough for *some* people, but it definitely is not enough for *all* people, and if the New Testament and the history of humanity and the experience of the Church has revealed, it is not enough for *most* of the people.  Otherwise you get people speaking with their mouths that they believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He redeems their sins while killing their neighbors and drowning their children.

----------


## Kevin007

> Dr.3d, saw your post and had to respond...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   So establishing a Church with doctrines equates with the pride of the Pharisees?  
> 
> So you think doctrines don't matter?  Do you think St. Paul felt that way?  Doesn't seem that way to me.
> 
> ...


you cannot mix grace with works. It is either salvation by faith in Jesus' finished work, a free gift or it is what you suggest faith PLUS WORKS, which is def. not scriptural. If it was, we could save ourselves.

Jesus died for the Jailer, not demons. Demons can not be saved.

*gasp!* did you know you are ALREADY SAVED when you do these good things?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Dr.3d, saw your post and had to respond...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   So establishing a Church with doctrines equates with the pride of the Pharisees?  
> 
> So you think doctrines don't matter?  Do you think St. Paul felt that way?  Doesn't seem that way to me.
> 
> ...


+rep

----------


## Kevin007

It is a hopeless endeavor to plead my case before God based on my own  righteousness or merit.There is nothing I can do to make myself right  and acceptable before God.There is no good work that I can do, nor any  combination of good works, that can qualify me for entrance into Heaven. It is based on what Jesus did, not on what I do.

----------


## erowe1

> Though there are hundreds of dogmas in the Orthodox church, they are simple enough that anyone can understand them by rote memorization and relatively light study.


The following is the Definition of Chalcedon from AD 451. So at this point it's still rather early in the development of dogmas that your denomination insists on. As you proceed on to those more recent than this, the level of complication and pickiness only grows:



> Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us
> One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.


That is not simple enough for anyone to understand.

----------


## moostraks

> Brilliant post.  ALL of us involved in these arguments seem to think you are complimenting us and scolding an opponent, yet not seeing our own guilt or getting your point.  
> 
> LOL  You should start a thread with so everyone (me included) can argue over this new revelation.


Irony is that it seems to me most Bible truths have always been like this. I don't understand why there has to be so much condemnation from people who should be supporting others who have their own path to walk. (Yes, i understand the argument of keeping right doctrine. IMO the best argument towards those sorts of issues is any belief becomes an idol itself when it causes us problems in fulfilling the two greatest commandments. So here state your position and you can agree to disagree and at church you have the ability to break fellowship) I think our understanding grows as we grow in our faith and He knows what we need and He knows when it is time to challenge our current understanding to grasp a deeper meaning to our childish knowledge. For some they can maintain a lifelong faith system to achieve this growth for others they will find they have outgrown the teachings and move on to different mentors. The individual seeker should use discernment in regards to whom they intrust with their education.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> It is a hopeless endeavor to plead my case before God based on my own  righteousness or merit.There is nothing I can do to make myself right  and acceptable before God.There is no good work that I can do, nor any  combination of good works, that can qualify me for entrance into Heaven. It is based on what Jesus did, not on what I do.


What could be simpler than this.  Plus rep

----------


## TER

> The following is the Definition of Chalcedon from AD 451. So at this point it's still rather early in the development of dogmas that your denomination insists on. As you proceed on to those more recent than this, the level of complication and pickiness only grows:
> 
> That is not simple enough for anyone to understand.


In the days of the fourth council, the laity were well versed with the controversies in the Church.  Whereas today we have tens of thousands of denomination espousing many different beliefs and doctrines, back then it simply was not so.  There was One Church, and the purity of the faith was jealously guarded, so that when a heresy would spring up in say Alexandria, the rest of the Church would speak up.  And speak up they did!  In those days, which followed after the severe Roman persecution, people in the streets were not discussing what happened on Amercian Idol, they spent much of their time debating freely and passionately the Christological points we take for granted today.  Ousia, hypostasis, etc were the topics of discussion of the day. (I don't have the source right now, but when I find it will post it.  It basically was a Church Father stating how these debates were on everyone's lips, on every street and gathering, becoming the topics that occupied most conversations).  Does Jesus have two natures?  Does He have two will?  Is He begotten or created?  Is He of the same essense our ousia of the Father?  

While the Church very well understood that following the commandments of The Lord was all that was necessary, it became increasingly necessary to the Church to expound on the Christology of the faith because of the heresies which sought to divide the faith from sharing in one mind and one faith from the one cup of salvation (the Holy Eucharist).  The Church had to fight external enemies in its infant years under the yoke and persecution of the Roman Empire.  When that persecution ended, it then had to contend with enemies internally which threatened to break it apart and disrupt the unity of the body.  So these councils, these definitions, these dogmatic statements were not to simply formulate topics of debate or to partake in mental exercises for the sake of it, but to protect and keep unified the true faithful in sacramental Eucharistic communion.  The primary goal always of the Church is pastoral.

 Right theology is important to right worship, and the goal of all was to be orthodox in both respects and according to the beliefs of the Apostles.  When external or internal threats begin to divide the body, it then becomes necessary for a synod or council to come together to deliberate on what the orthodox understanding is.

The Council of Chalcedon fought the Monophysite heresy which taught that Christ has one nature, which was close to Appollonariasm and docetism, and distorts the soteriology of the faith in how Christ saves our human nature.  It became necessary to profess the writings you listed above to combat this heresy and proclaim the orthodox faith.  For you it might not seem simple, but for the Christians debating this at the time, it was understood.  And it has been the laity which has confirmed the council in Ephesus in time which is why it can be called Ecumenical.

----------


## Terry1

> salvation is not a life long process. It happens at a person's conversion. I think you meant the Catholics added stuff, like thousands of pages in the Catechism to the Bible.


That's very interesting Kevin.  I'd like to ask you what all of the hoopla is that Paul speaks about "enduring" and that he "kept his faith" and "finished the race" in this life.  Just what do you suppose Paul was saying to you here then?  
If faith is a gift, they why are we told that we must "keep faith".  If it's a gift and one can never fall--then why does Paul tell us that we can, along with Hebrews 6:4 and John 15:5.


*
Pauls Valedictory

6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand.  7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.  8 Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.*

----------


## Terry1

> It is a hopeless endeavor to plead my case before God based on my own  righteousness or merit.There is nothing I can do to make myself right  and acceptable before God.There is no good work that I can do, nor any  combination of good works, that can qualify me for entrance into Heaven. It is based on what Jesus did, not on what I do.


Kevin, do you understand the difference between the two laws that Paul is talking about in his epistles.  Why does Paul tell you to do a "work of faith" and not to do "a work of the law"?  Do you understand what he's saying in those verses?
*
Romans 2:15 
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

John 10: 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;  38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe[d] that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” *

----------


## Terry1

> you cannot mix grace with works. It is either salvation by faith in Jesus' finished work, a free gift or it is what you suggest faith PLUS WORKS, which is def. not scriptural. If it was, we could save ourselves.
> 
> Jesus died for the Jailer, not demons. Demons can not be saved.
> 
> *gasp!* did you know you are ALREADY SAVED when you do these good things?


"gasp"---Kevin--why is God telling the churches/believers that He will judge them "according to their works"?  Why do you think names are blotted from the Book of LIfe?

*Revelation 2:23 
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.*

----------


## erowe1

> In the days of the fourth council, the laity were well versed with the controversies in the Church.


Source?

----------


## Terry1

> you cannot mix grace with works. It is either salvation by faith in Jesus' finished work, a free gift or it is what you suggest faith PLUS WORKS, which is def. not scriptural. If it was, we could save ourselves.
> 
> Jesus died for the Jailer, not demons. Demons can not be saved.
> 
> *gasp!* did you know you are ALREADY SAVED when you do these good things?


*We are not to do the works of the old law, but we are to do the works of faith which are the "fruits of the Spirit"...do you understand the difference?*

James 2:18 
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James 2:20 
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 2:26 
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also

1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:





.Matthew 16:27 
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

John 5:36 
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me

John 8:39 
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

(Abraham is the father of faith---we also as children do those "works of faith" confirming what Paul is saying as in "works of faith".

John 10:38 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Our "works in faith" are our "fruits" that show evidence of who we are in Christ.

1 Timothy 5:25 
Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

1 Timothy 6:18 
That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;



*Do you not understand that "works of faith" are opposite "dead works of the law to obtain righteousness"?  This is why Paul is telling you to do one and not the other.  

Where all of you OSAS and Predestination believers fall short is in your biblical understanding of the difference of the two laws that Paul is referring to.  That we are to continue working as we are led by the spirit of the Lord.  If this were not so--Christians would all be sitting around doing nothing in response to their faith in Christ and obedience to the HOly Spirit.  

The hungry wouldn't get fed, the poor would not be attended to, the sick would not be helped by those the Lord is speaking to go and do that WORK He's calling them to do.  Do you understand this?*

*These are your "fruits of the Spirit"--this is how we bear the fruit of the True Vine/Jesus.  Without these fruits/works---as Paul tells you that your faith dies, you fall from faith and you are unable to be "renewed to repentance. Galatians 5:4,  James 2:17, John 15:5, Hebrews 6:4--*

----------


## Terry1

..

----------


## Dr.3D

> Dr.3d, saw your post and had to respond...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   So establishing a Church with doctrines equates with the pride of the Pharisees?


I tend to wonder about a church who would have the audacity to call themselves "The (one and only) Catholic Church" to the exclusion of all of the other churches of the era.  What happened to the rest of them?  (Put them altogether and you then have what is known as The Holy Catholic Church.)



> So you think doctrines don't matter?  Do you think St. Paul felt that way?  Doesn't seem that way to me.
> 
> Was his response in his epistles to the faithful 'just believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems you from your sins'?  He could have saved a lot of time, energy and parchment simply sending out that little memo.  But, unfortunately, just believing this (which BTW the demons believe as well) apparently isn't enough.


Seems more like he had problems with politics, just the same as any activity involving human interaction.   Of course demons know who Jesus is.  Of course they also know Jesus didn't die for their sins.



> When the issue with regards with circumcision happened in Acts, should the Apostles just have said "hey guys, the faith is really simple, and this kind of stuff it doesn't matter, just believe that Jesus died for your sins, and nothing else matters!"


Seems that's pretty much what happened.   They dropped the need for circumcision of the flesh.



> When Paul exhorts his readers with pastoral care and guidance on instructions on how to live and understand the Way they were to live, did he just say "just have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems your sins" and there is nothing more that is necessary?  Everything will be a okay?
> 
> How about the Arians, the Nestorians, and all the other heretics who distorted (by use of Scripture no less) the understanding of Who Christ is.  They too also believed that Christ died for their sins and that He is the Son of God.  Should the rest of the Church just said,  ah, it doesn't matter.  Here, come over and share the Holy Eucharist and these little topics of Who Christ is and how He saves us isn't really that important.  Just believe He died for your sins!  What could possibly go wrong?  A little heresy never hurt anybody!
> 
> Dr.3D, I am not trying to be condescending, because I know you are a wise man, but I am trying to make a point that doctrine DOES matter, and the necessary understanding of the Apostolic faith DOES matter, so when I see you try to simply the Christian faith by taking one verse from Scripture and ignoring the rest, I think it should be debated.


I'm not wise enough or I wouldn't be here finding it necessary to defend my beliefs in a much simpler gospel than is being put forth by the politicians.



> You mention the verse
> 
> 
> But tell me, what does "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" mean?  Perhaps you think it is as simple as 'believe He is the Son of God"?  Well, we know the demons know that, and they are not saved, so it can't be that.  Or 'believe He died for your sins'?  Well, the demons know that too, as did all the heretics who distorted the Christian faith, so it can't be that either.


As I said before, demons can not be saved by belief in Jesus.   The "Catholic" (in name only) church did pronounce a lot of saints to be heretics, I wonder how that is going to work out at judgment time.



> Have you thought that maybe 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' might mean something more 'active', something having to do with obedience and trust and commitment and *gasp* self-denial and humility and submission?
> 
> Simplifying (in fact, dumbing down) the teachings of Christ and the Apostles to a simple "just have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and that His sacrifice on the cross redeems your sins" may be enough for *some* people, but it definitely is not enough for *all* people, and if the New Testament and the history of humanity and the experience of the Church has revealed, it is not enough for *most* of the people.  Otherwise you get people speaking with their mouths that they believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He redeems their sins while killing their neighbors and drowning their children.


  You still get people speaking with their mouth that they believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He redeems their sins all the while killing their neighbors and drowning their children and then going to confession and doing as father (Matthew 23:9) says so that everything will be all better.

  It's not the works that save.  They are only the outward manifestation of true faith.   If those people had true faith, their actions (works) would reflect that faith.

----------


## Terry1

Seems that a lot of the OSAS and Predestination people are more hung up on practices and traditions than they are the actual Bibliology of correct doctrine and scriptural accuracy.

The Catholic and EOC are the closest I've seen to being on par with the word of God---the EOC being the closest I've seen as of yet along with some non-denominationals and Messianics. 

While traditions and practices seem to be a stumbling block for some,  I see them as Apostle Paul did---just something that people do in love, honor and respect for God.  All of those things that are done, whether necessary or not---Paul says that God is able to make that believer stand because what they do-they do in love for the Father and He is able to make them stand.  So we are not to judge anyone based upon their traditions or practices.  We live our own convictions and preach Christ always.  What is sin to one is not to another as Paul says and that God is able to make them stand because He knows their hearts and love for Him.

The Bibliology of the Catholics and the EOC is scripturally correct.  We are not once saved always saved, nor is there any such thing as "limited atonement" and we are expected to maintain our faith through our works in obedience to the Holy Spirit.  All of this is contrary to the Protestant reformed doctrines who fallaciously believe that there's some super multi-laned highway to heaven and that anyone who confesses the name of Christ is saved and has eternal life from the point of confession with their lips that they believe.  This is not biblical and heretical doctrine of the protestant reformers.

----------


## TER

> I tend to wonder about a church who would have the audacity to call themselves "The (one and only) Catholic Church" to the exclusion of all of the other churches of the era.  What happened to the rest of them?  (Put them altogether and you then have what is known as The Holy Catholic Church.)


Is it audacious to defend the truth?  I don't have a problem with a Church calling themselves the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if they can prove it. The Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics say the same thing.  I disagree with them and feel there is enough proof to demonstrate that it is the Eastern Orthodox Church.  What I think is audacious is to claim that there are many bodies of Christ with different communions and different beliefs when Christ is not the author of confusion and prayed for the faithful to be one.




> Seems more like he had problems with politics, just the same as any activity involving human interaction.


No, it was because it was affecting the unity of the Church on account of wrong doctrine.  It is a great example of why I am making this point to you that correct doctrine is essential in the worship and unity of the Church as one body in Christ.




> Of course they also know Jesus didn't die for their sins.


You are mistaken here. It is not out of ignorance that the demons reject Christ, or because they don't believe that Christ died for the sins of the world (including theirs) but because they love their passions and sins more then they do Christ and out of pride do not think they need a savior.  




> Seems that's pretty much what happened.   They dropped the need for circumcision of the flesh.


They dropped it because in Council they corrected the false heresy and put St. Peter in his place.  Had St. Peter acted like some modern Christians, he would have went his own way and started his own congregation partaking of a different communion, starting another body of believers, in other words, another church.  But in humility, he accepted that he was in error and submitted himself to the one church, as should we.




> As I said before, demons can not be saved by belief in Jesus.   The "Catholic" (in name only) church did pronounce a lot of saints to be heretics, I wonder how that is going to work out at judgment time.


See above.  Demons cannot be saved because their wills are against the will of God, nor because they do not believe in your simplified gospel of 'Jesus is the Son of God and He died for our sins.'  Belief means much more then mental assent.  It requires repentance, humility, obedience, and submission.




> You still get people speaking with their mouth that they believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He redeems their sins all the while killing their neighbors and drowning their children and then going to confession and doing as father (Matthew 23:9) says so that everything will be all better.[/QUOTE
> 
>   It's not the works that save.  They are only the outward manifestation of true faith.   If those people had true faith, their actions (works) would reflect that faith.


There are people who truly believe with all their heart that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died of their sins, and yet still commit heinous sins.  And they will be judged because of their actions.  Their faith alone will not save them, because we will not be judged by our mental assent and faith, but by our works.  Those are the ones Christ said will say "Lord, Lord' as they are condemned for not doing what He commanded.

----------


## Terry1

> Is it audacious to defend the truth?  I don't have a problem with a Church calling themselves the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if they can prove it. The Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics say the same thing.  I disagree with them and feel there is enough proof to demonstrate that it is the Eastern Orthodox Church.  What I think is audacious is to claim that there are many bodies of Christ with different communions and different beliefs when Christ is not the author of confusion and prayed for the faithful to be one.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was because it was affecting the unity of the Church on account of wrong doctrine.  It is a great example of why I am making this point to you that correct doctrine is essential in the worship and unity of the Church as one body in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken here. It is not out of ignorance that the demons reject Christ, or because they don't believe that Christ died for the sins of the world (including theirs) but because they love their passions and sins more then they do Christ and out of pride do not think they need a savior.  
> ...



+reps !!!

----------


## TER

> Source?


I will search to find it for you.  Like I said, it was a writing from the Church Father from that era who was describing how the entire populace was involved in the debate and aware of the Christologic beliefs of the opposing sides.  I wish I had the memory I used to have to know exactly who wrote it, but you will have to trust me on it.  If you can't, that is fine too.

----------


## erowe1

> I will search to find it for you.  Like I said, it was a writing from the Church Father from that era who was describing how the entire populace was involved in the debate and aware of the Christologic beliefs of the opposing sides.  I wish I had the memory I used to have to know exactly who wrote it, but you will have to trust me on it.  If you can't, that is fine too.


It's pretty implausible. Even if someone from that time said it was so, that doesn't make it so.

Furthermore, if it really is so, that doesn't detract from my point. HB seemed to approve of what 3D had said about the simplicity of the Gospel, and how to be a Christian it isn't necessary to understand complicated issues.

----------


## TER

> It's pretty implausible. Even if someone from that time said it was so, that doesn't make it so.


Well, it may be hyperbole.  Nevertheless, this is a distractable point with regards to what it means to be in one mind with the Church and the place of the Eucharist as the center of unity and worship in the Church.  I can be in one mind with the Church and in communion with them and _not_ understand or know every theological concept.  In fact, it is a given that I will not have the theoria and knowledge of God compared to those great and holy saints who have beheld the Uncreated Light of God or have been graced by the Holy Spirit in great heights of theosis.

  The question rather is, when I am corrected and am pointed out my error, will I follow the example of St. Peter and repent, or will I break away from the communion as Arias did.  Humility is needed to enter the Body of Christ as it is needed to enter the Kingdom of God.

----------


## Nang

> it means to be in one mind with the Church and the place of the Eucharist as the center of unity and worship in the Church.  I can be in one mind with the Church and in communion with them and _not_ understand or know every theological concept.


Are persons allowed to observe _your_ Eucharist who do not believe Jesus Christ worked redemption on His cross?

----------


## Terry1

> Are persons allowed to observe _your_ Eucharist who do not believe Jesus Christ worked redemption on His cross?


Who would want to take it if they didn't believe?  Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

----------


## Nang

> Who would want to take it if they didn't believe?  Are you sure that's what you meant to say?


Excuse me . . . the question was directed to TER.

----------


## Terry1

> Excuse me . . . the question was directed to TER.


Fine with me, but your question makes no sense, that's all I was pointing out and that you might want to fix it. lol

----------


## TER

> Are persons allowed to observe _your_ Eucharist who do not believe Jesus Christ worked redemption on His cross?


I am not sure I understand the question. Can you re-word it?

----------


## Nang

> I am not sure I understand the question. Can you re-word it?



Can persons partake of communion in your Church, who do not believe Christ worked redemption on the cross?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Seems that a lot of the OSAS and Predestination people are more hung up on practices and traditions than they are the actual Bibliology of correct doctrine and scriptural accuracy.
> 
> The Catholic and EOC are the closest I've seen to being on par with the word of God---the EOC being the closest I've seen as of yet along with some non-denominationals and Messianics. 
> 
> While traditions and practices seem to be a stumbling block for some,  I see them as Apostle Paul did---just something that people do in love, honor and respect for God.  All of those things that are done, whether necessary or not---Paul says that God is able to make that believer stand because what they do-they do in love for the Father and He is able to make them stand.  So we are not to judge anyone based upon their traditions or practices.  We live our own convictions and preach Christ always.  What is sin to one is not to another as Paul says and that God is able to make them stand because He knows their hearts and love for Him.
> 
> The Bibliology of the Catholics and the EOC is scripturally correct.  We are not once saved always saved, nor is there any such thing as "limited atonement" and we are expected to maintain our faith through our works in obedience to the Holy Spirit.  All of this is contrary to the Protestant reformed doctrines who fallaciously believe that there's some super multi-laned highway to heaven and that anyone who confesses the name of Christ is saved and has eternal life from the point of confession with their lips that they believe.  This is not biblical and heretical doctrine of the protestant reformers.






> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.


 Derned rep machine... :P

----------


## TER

> Can persons partake of communion in your Church, who do not believe Christ worked redemption on the cross?


You may have to define redemption, because we may have a different understanding of redemption.

  If you mean that by Christ's death on the cross He destroyed the power of sin and death over our nature and has granted us the way to union with our Father in heaven, then this is a fundamental belief of the Church which must be believed and confessed prior to partaking in the Holy Eucharist.

----------


## Nang

> You may have to define redemption, because we may have a different understanding of redemption.
> 
>   If you mean that by Christ's death on the cross He destroyed the power of sin and death over our nature and has granted us the way to union with our Father in heaven, then this is a fundamental belief of the Church which must be believed and confessed prior to partaking in the Holy Eucharist.


Redeemed (greek "_agorazo_") means "to purchase" and/or (greek "_lutroo")_ to buy or pay a "ransom."

". . Knowing that you were not *redeemed* with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but* with the precious blood of Christ*, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."  I Peter 1:18-19

" . . You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for *You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood* out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation . . ."  Revelation 5:9

----------


## Terry1

> Redeemed (greek "_agorazo_") means "to purchase" and/or (greek "_lutroo")_ to buy or pay a "ransom."
> 
> ". . Knowing that you were not *redeemed* with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but* with the precious blood of Christ*, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."  I Peter 1:18-19
> 
> " . . You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for *You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood* out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation . . ."  Revelation 5:9


What are you attempting to say here Nang, because I'm reading you as if you're attempting to claim that Catholic or other aren't saved who take Holy Communion.  So because you don't agree with their dogma, you don't think they're taking communion worthy of it and that they're eating judgment unto themselves.  Is this what you're saying here?

----------


## TER

> Redeemed (greek "_agorazo_") means "to purchase" and/or (greek "_lutroo")_ to buy or pay a "ransom."
> 
> ". . Knowing that you were not *redeemed* with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but* with the precious blood of Christ*, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."  I Peter 1:18-19
> 
> " . . You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for *You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood* out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation . . ."  Revelation 5:9


Are you referring to Substitutional Atonement theory?

The way in which we find salvation in Christ is much more then this juridical aspect of the atonment aspect of Christ's work on the cross.  It is the cornerstone of Protestant theology, but the Scriptural and Patristic thought is not limited to this important aspect.  Indeed, our redemption in Christ is a mystery like the Holy Trinity is a mystery and it does not begin on the cross but rather in the very Incarnation of the Logos of God. Our transfiguration into adopted sons and daughters of God and theosis as partakers of the divine nature involve more then a ransom paid by Christ, for the therapeutic aspect is also important in our salvation.  Christ is not a mere sacrifice, but the Great Physician, the High Priest, the First-fruits of our future nature.

So while the juridical aspect is indeed important to accept as a participant in the Holy Eucharist and communion within the Church, it is not the only aspect.

----------


## Nang

> Are you referring to Substitutional Atonement theory?


No, I am asking about the very act of redemption.




> our redemption in Christ is a mystery like the Holy Trinity is a mystery and it does not begin on the cross but rather in the very Incarnation of the Logos of God. Our transfiguration into adopted sons and daughters of God and theosis as partakers of the divine nature involve more then a ransom paid by Christ,


So you are saying you believe Jesus Christ worked mysterious redemption in His incarnation but something more is required than His blood offering on the cross, to work efficacious redemption?

His blood did not pay the full ransom to release sinners from the power of the devil?  Hebrews 2:15

His blood did not pay the full price to work propitiation for the sins of men?  I John 2:2; 4:10

Did not Christ shedding His blood demonstrate His righteousness, so that sinners might be justified (pardoned for their sins)?  Romans 3:24-26

What would that something more be?

And if someone did not believe in redemption accomplished at all on the cross, would they be welcomed to participate in_ your_ Eucharest?

----------


## Terry1

Nang--the proof in Gods word alone where God Himself tells you that you'll be judged by your works should send up red flags all over the place in your mind that something beyond just confession and belief is required of us.  

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened.* And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books*.  13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.  14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.  15* And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire*.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

This could be a whole new thread.  I believe the EO and the RCC are divided about the meaning of Eucharist.  Romans would call it, "the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ."    I do not know what the EO believes.

----------


## Nang

> Nang--the proof in Gods word alone where God Himself tells you that you'll be judged by your works should send up red flags all over the place in your mind that something beyond just confession and belief is required of us.


You place no value on the blood offering of Jesus Christ, do you?

Salvation is all your doing . . . period.

I wonder why Jesus even incarnated and died on the cross, if heaven were to be gained by your good works.

Why, He wouldn't even love us, if we don't first love Him!  Wait!  Does that accord with scripture?

No.

"We love Him, because He first loved us."  I John 4:19

It is only by His life, we can live, and it is only in His light, that we can see light.  (Psalm 36:9)

----------


## Nang

> This could be a whole new thread.  I believe the EO and the RCC are divided about the meaning of Eucharist.  Romans would call it, "the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ."    I do not know what the EO believes.



I truly do not know, either.  That is why I am asking.

I believe it is an important question, though.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This could be a whole new thread.  I believe the EO and the RCC are divided about the meaning of Eucharist.  Romans would call it, "the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ."    I do not know what the EO believes.


AFAIK, the Eastern and Western churches have the same understanding of the Eucharist.  The Roman Church became schismatic for several other rasons-papal authority, differences in understanding the Creed fillioque, etc.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> You place no value on the blood offering of Jesus Christ, do you?
> 
> Salvation is all your doing . . . period.
> 
> I wonder why Jesus even incarnated and died on the cross, if heaven were to be gained by your good works.
> 
> Why, He wouldn't even love us, if we don't first love Him!  Wait!  Does that accord with scripture?
> 
> No.
> ...


Now, this is humbling.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> AFAIK, the Eastern and Western churches have the same understanding of the Eucharist.  The Roman Church became schismatic for several other rasons-papal authority, differences in understanding the Creed fillioque, etc.


I thought the EO called it something other than transubstantiation because of the action of the priest.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> AFAIK, the Eastern and Western churches have the same understanding of the Eucharist.  The Roman Church became schismatic for several other rasons-papal authority, differences in understanding the Creed fillioque, etc.


And, are there not schisms within the EO as well.  Some make it seem like the EO and RCC are united within their own ranks and that is not the case.   So, Reformers come along and want to get away from the many excesses/and confusion within the RCC and EO.

----------


## Nang

The EO split from Rome over the Filioque controversy, that had to do with trinitarian beliefs.

I thought any church that observed communion of any kind, honored the blood offering (the cup) of Jesus Christ, and believed it was the sufficient and efficacious source of redemption for sinners.

----------


## Terry1

> You place no value on the blood offering of Jesus Christ, do you?
> 
> Salvation is all your doing . . . period.)


Jesus died to give mankind the HOPE--that IT MIGHT BE---and why--as I've already cited literally hundreds of scripture to support the fact that our state of salvation rests upon our choice to either serve God or the devil--period.  Within that choice we are all held accountable for what we say and do not before confession and belief---but after confession of belief.  Repentance follows belief--it does not precede it.  Because before we believed we were dead in our sin.  Only after belief did we come into the knowledge and wisdom of God--or we're supposed to--many don't as you illustrate for us very clearly.




> I wonder why Jesus even incarnated and died on the cross, if heaven were to be gained by your good works.


We are supposed to do good work as a result of our faith and belief.  This isn't something that God chooses for us, it's something that we ourselves are given the perfect freedom in Christ to do ourselves and are held accountable to God for everything we say and do AFTER confession.  Why do you think that Paul told us to "never cease doing our "works of faith" then?  Our works are evidence that we are spiritually hearing and answering our calling in Christ.  These are our fruits of the Spirit, which without---John 15:5 tells you that branch in Christ/the True Vine is then cut off.  This is when God knows that believer will not return unto Him.




> Why, He wouldn't even love us, if we don't first love Him!  Wait!  Does that accord with scripture?
> 
> No.
> 
> "We love Him, because He first loved us."  I John 4:19
> 
> It is only by His life, we can live, and it is only in His light, that we can see light.  (Psalm 36:9)


We show our love for the Lord in what we say and do to others, which happens to be the second greatest commandment in the Word, which is equal to the first which love God with all of our hearts and mind.  These are our "works"---"works of faith" demonstrated as we become examples of Christ in everything we do and say to one another.  These are our "fruits of labour and Spirit".

James tells you faith can die--Paul tells you that you can fall from grace---John tells you that you can be cut off because you've ignored the voice of the Holy Spirit calling you to good works and repentance.  Then Hebrews tells you that then your are cut off and unable to be RENEWED to repentance.  "RENEWED" meaning that you once were able to repent and now you can't because when God cuts a believer off from repentance---He's done with them because repentance is the only way back to God.

All of these things you ignore while spouting your Calvinist reformed dogma that's equal to satire and does not support the word of God.

Salvation in this life is a state of being---a state of elect.  That state of elect is not a guarantee of eternal security---it is a state of abiding in Christ and if one stops abiding in Christ in this life and for too long---God will cut them off and only God knows when they won't return.  It's time--past time you reexamine your belief Nang.

----------


## TER

> So you are saying you believe Jesus Christ worked mysterious redemption in His incarnation but something more is required than His blood offering on the cross, to work efficacious redemption?
> 
> His blood did not pay the full ransom to release sinners from the power of the devil?  Hebrews 2:15
> 
> His blood did not pay the full price to work propitiation for the sins of men?  I John 2:2; 4:10
> 
> Did not Christ shedding His blood demonstrate His righteousness, so that sinners might be justified (pardoned for their sins)?  Romans 3:24-26
> 
> What would that something more be?
> ...


First to answer your last question, again, if someone does not believe in the redemption accomplished on the cross, then they cannot recieve communion.  (also, it is not 'my' Eucharist)

With regards to the other questions you ask, I think we are approaching this differently and are talk past eachother.
Christ's work on the cross destroyed the power of sin and death over our nature.  He restored our nature by uniting with it and raising it up by His sinless death, resurrection and ascension.  

Christ's work in this regard has affected everyone who has ever lived.  For this reason, all will raise on the Last Day from the dead.  Without Christ's sacrifice and work on the cross, this could never have happened.  It required God to come down and restore us who have fallen so far from Him.

By restoring our nature and opening up to us the way unto salvation, He has granted us the opportunity to live in communion with God and become adopted sons of the Kingdom and all the glory and riches of the Kingdom which come along with that.  This communion is our transfiguration in the 'likeness and stature' of Christ.  It is our theosis and deification by the Holy Spirit.  Thus while Christ redeemed us from the eternal consequences of the ancestral sin and curse of Adam, we must 'work our salvation in fear and trembling' by following His example and His commandments.  This requires us to align our will with His will and love as He loves.  Through this our redeemed nature is then sanctified into a resurrection of life in the Kingdom.  Otherwise, by following our own wills as slaves of our own passions and sinful desires, our redeemed nature will lead to a resurrection of judgement and eternal death (separation) from God.

I hope this explains a little bit the Patristic understanding of our salvation by, in, and through Christ.

----------


## TER

> It is only by His life, we can live, and it is only in His light, that we can see light.  (Psalm 36:9)


This is of course true.  But it requires work on our part to accept and 'tune in' to that light.

The following crude example helps to explain it:

Our heart is like a radio with an antenna.  God sends his radio waves to us, but it is up to us to 'tune in' through obedience, prayer, fasting, and humility so that our radio (our hearts) can receive these radio waves and have understanding and be efficacious to us.  Can God saves us by aligning the channels by His own power?  Of course.  But He has deigned to give us free will so that it will be up to us to accept Him and love Him, not through coercion of through force, but through love.

----------


## TER

> The EO split from Rome over the Filioque controversy, that had to do with trinitarian beliefs.
> 
> I thought any church that observed communion of any kind, honored the blood offering (the cup) of Jesus Christ, and believed it was the sufficient and efficacious source of redemption for sinners.


There were more reasons than the Filioque, most importantly the role and place of the Bishop of Rome.  That would be an entire different thread.  I will bump a good artice I read which explains it if you or anyone is interested.

----------


## Nang

> Christ's work on the cross destroyed the power of sin and death over our nature.  He restored our nature by uniting with it and raising it up by His sinless death, resurrection and ascension.


Well, you have said this twice, so I must point out it does not accord with Holy Scripture.  Jesus Christ destroyed the power of the devil that keeps all sinners enslaved to death and sin.  He released those in bondage all their lives to the devil, paid for their sins, and is their High Priest forever. 

Please read Hebrews 2:10-18

It says nothing about, and goes way further than just "restoring the nature" of men.




> Christ's work in this regard has affected everyone who has ever lived.  For this reason, all will raise on the Last Day from the dead.  Without Christ's sacrifice and work on the cross, this could never have happened.  It required God to come down and restore us who have fallen so far from Him.
> 
> By restoring our nature and opening up to us the way unto salvation, He has granted us the opportunity to live in communion with God and become adopted sons of the Kingdom and all the glory and riches of the Kingdom which come along with that.  This communion is our transfiguration in the 'likeness and stature' of Christ.  It is our theosis and deification by the Holy Spirit.  Thus while Christ redeemed us from the eternal consequences of the ancestral sin and curse of Adam, we must 'work our salvation in fear and trembling' by following His example and His commandments.  This requires us to align our will with His will and love as He loves.  Through this our redeemed nature is then sanctified into a resurrection of life in the Kingdom.  Otherwise, by following our own wills as slaves of our own passions and sinful desires, our redeemed nature will lead to a resurrection of judgement and eternal death (separation) from God.
> 
> I hope this explains a little bit the Patristic understanding of our salvation by, in, and through Christ.


You did not answer what needs to be added to the blood offering of Jesus Christ.  Do you trust in the blood shed by Christ for your salvation, or something more?

----------


## TER

> Well, you have said this twice, so I must point out it does not accord with Holy Scripture.  Jesus Christ destroyed the power of the devil that keeps all sinners enslaved to death and sin.  He released those in bondage all their lives to the devil, paid for their sins, and is their High Priest forever. 
> 
> Please read Hebrews 2:10-18
> 
> It says nothing about, and goes way further than just "restoring the nature" of men.


Our transformation from the old man to the new man and our growth in the likeness and stature of Jesus Christ involve our sanctification by the Holy Spirit as partakers in the divine nature, from glory to glory.  This happens now in this life and continues forever.  

Christ's death on the cross forever destroyed death and the power of sin over us, ALL of us, every person ever born.  For that reason, all people with resurrect again.  But resurrecting again does not equate to entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.  This will require judgement according to our works.  This is the biblical and patristic understanding and the understanding of the Church since the beginning.  I am simply following what greater people then me have given their lives for 2000 years confessing.




> You did not answer what needs to be added to the blood offering of Jesus Christ.  Do you trust in the blood shed by Christ for your salvation, or something more?


I believe Christ's sacrifice alone will raise us on the Final Day. I believe only through His grace can I overcome my passions and propensity to sin.  I believe I must follow His commandments so that I may enter into the Kingdom.  To help me along the way, He has established His grace filled Church and sacraments.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And, are there not schisms within the EO as well.  Some make it seem like the EO and RCC are united within their own ranks and that is not the case.   So, Reformers come along and want to get away from the many excesses/and confusion within the RCC and EO.


What "schisms" do you see in the Orthodox Church?  Varying ethicities/nationalities are not "schisms".  A Greek Christian could take communion at a Russian parish, for example.  Orthodoxy is Universal.  

There were no excesses in the EO church before the Reformation.  There were (and are) in the Roman Church, though.  Some percieve aspects of Orthodoxy as "excess", such as chant, icons, incese, etc, but they aren't.  They are part of the "fullness" of the faith, as it is commonly called.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There were more reasons than the Filioque, most importantly the role and place of the Bishop of Rome.  That would be an entire different thread.  I will bump a good artice I read which explains it if you or anyone is interested.


Indeed.  A short list of requirements for reunion is to reject these:
* Papal universal jurisdiction
* Papal infallibility
* Papal exclusivism
* Development of doctrine
* Their understanding of the Fillioque
* Original sin understood as guilt transmitted via "propagation"
* The immaculate conception of Mary
* Absolute divine simplicity
*Merit and satisfaction soteriology
* Purgatory and indulgences
* Created grace

and to accept and confess these:
*Authority of Ecumenical Councils over the pope
* The essence/energies distinction

and to restore Orthodox practices, which Eastern Catholics have already maintained:
*Reconnect confirmation/chrismation to baptism rather than delaying it
*give holy Communion to all Church members, including infants.

----------


## Nang

> Our transformation from the old man to the new man and our growth in the likeness and stature of Jesus Christ involve our sanctification by the Holy Spirit as partakers in the divine nature, from glory to glory.  This happens now in this life and continues forever.  
> 
> Christ's death on the cross forever destroyed death and the power of sin over us, ALL of us, every person ever born.  For that reason, all people with resurrect again.  But resurrecting again does not equate to entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.  This will require judgement according to our works.  This is the biblical and patristic understanding and the understanding of the Church since the beginning.  I am simply following what greater people then me have given their lives for 2000 years confessing.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Christ's sacrifice alone will raise us on the Final Day. I believe only through His grace can I overcome my passions and propensity to sin.  I believe I must follow His commandments so that I may enter into the Kingdom.  To help me along the way, He has established His grace filled Church and sacraments.


So you believe in faith plus works.   Blood plus works.   Redemption, pardon, grace . . . plus works.

Sacraments plus works?

Are there any works required from communicants in your Church in order to observe _your_ Eucharist?  (I italicize "your" to differentiate the EO Eucharist from any others.)

----------


## TER

> So you believe in faith plus works.   Blood plus works.   Redemption, pardon, grace . . . plus works.
> 
> Sacraments plus works?
> 
> Are there any works required from communicants in your Church in order to observe _your_ Eucharist?  (I italicize "your" to differentiate the EO Eucharist from any others.)


There are no works I can do in order to raise from the dead on the Last Day.  Christ did all of the work on the cross.

My entrance (God willing) into the Kingdom will be by God's grace (as an _adopted_ son of the Kingdom), but He has stipulations to this which includes following certain commandments, the greatest being to love God and to love my neighbor. 

The Sacraments are given to me from His mercy for my growth in Christ.  They are not 100% necessary, but are important means of forgiveness, healing and sanctification.

The work required from the communicants in the Church is above all repentance.  Without repentance, humility, faith, and love, one must not approach the Holy Eucharist otherwise it can be towards our own judgement.

Indeed, the priest says just as the communicants are about to receive:

"Approach with the fear of God, faith, and love"

----------


## Nang

> There are no works I can do in order to raise from the dead on the Last Day.  Christ did all of the work on the cross.


What did the work of Christ on the cross entail?





> The work required from the communicants in the Church is above all repentance.  Without repentance, humility, faith, and love, one must not approach the Holy Eucharist otherwise it can be towards our own judgement.
> 
> Indeed, the priest says just as the communicants are about to receive:
> 
> "Approach with the fear of God, faith, and love"


Have you ever considered that repentance should include confessing one's less-than-perfect works?

Or do you consider your works can/should/must measure up to the works Christ performed on the cross in any way?

What is the point in confessing faith in the blood of Christ, if you think it is contingent upon you to improve upon it in any way?  How could you possibly do that?  No amount of repentance in the world can ever elevate us to the perfection and sinlessness of the Son of Man who worked salvation on the cross.

----------


## eduardo89

> * Purgatory


I don't see why EO would have any objections to the Catholic dogma of purgatory which only says: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. 

What in that would EO object to?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't see why EO would have any objections to the Catholic dogma of purgatory which only says: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state. 
> 
> What in that would EO object to?


I don't know, but I'd hold that there's quite a lot for the *Christian* to object to.  The Bible says that "it is appointed unto man once to die, and then judgment."  Also, purgatory blatantly destroys the idea of an efficacious atonement.  If atonement actually, you know, atoned, there'd be no need for further atonement in purgatory.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't know, but I'd hold that there's quite a lot for the *Christian* to object to.  The Bible says that "it is appointed unto man once to die, and then judgment."


What does that have to do with purgatory?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What does that have to do with purgatory?


Well, in the Bible there's only two options presented, heaven or hell. Its not like, well, you go to purgatory for a little while and then you get to go to heaven.  That said, my other point was the more important point, IMO.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, in the Bible there's only two options presented, heaven or hell. Its not like, well, you go to purgatory for a little while and then you get to go to heaven.  That said, my other point was the more important point, IMO.


What does purgatory have to do with the verse you quoted?

----------


## TER

> What did the work of Christ on the cross entail?


Nang, Christ's work on the cross has destroyed the curse of our forefather Adam, made impotent the power of sin and death on our nature, and has assured us all bodily resurrection.  By then ascending into Heaven (with our human nature) Christ has made possible the descent of the Holy Spirit to all people who pick up their own cross and follow Him in obedience, faith, humility and love.  By this growth in Christ (through the Holy Spirit), our natures are transfigured into the likeness of Christ and we then can commune with the Father in a process called theosis, or deification.  This is the ultimate goal of our salvation, to partake and share in the divine energies of God, and to grow eternally in loving communion with Him, and through Him, all things.




> Have you ever considered that repentance should include confessing one's less-than-perfect works?


Without a doubt.  There is no repentance unless one acknowledges their sinfulness before God and their utter dependance on Him, confess their sins, and pray to God for mercy.  The prayers in preparation for receiving the Holy Eucharist are indeed prayers of the penitent.  No one should approach the chalice thinking themselves to be worthy, but instead, in a spirit of repentance, humility, and thanksgiving.




> Or do you consider your works can/should/must measure up to the works Christ performed on the cross in any way?


Impossible that my works can measure up to the works Christ performed on the cross.  




> What is the point in confessing faith in the blood of Christ, if you think it is contingent upon you to improve upon it in any way?  How could you possibly do that?  No amount of repentance in the world can ever elevate us to the perfection and sinlessness of the Son of Man who worked salvation on the cross.


No one is saying that.  If I can stand before the face of God, it is because of the grace of God and not because of my own abilities.  Christ Himself within me strengthens me and has lifted up what I could never do on my own.  The Holy Spirit filling what I lack and compensating my many deficiencies.  No Christian believes that their works are the things that will get them into Heaven.  God alone gets us into Heaven.  But He has established a law of love by which He will judge us against.  So that He will forgive us if we forgive others (and by the same measure).  He will show us mercy if we show mercy to others.  He will treat us the way we treated not only our neighbors, but even our enemies.

Christ saves us from death, and only by the grace of God will we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but the criteria He will use to judge if we are to enter within is how we, in our lives and in our relationships, have conformed our wills to His will and how we have grown in the image of Christ through our selfless love for God and our neighbors.

----------


## Terry1

> What did the work of Christ on the cross entail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that repentance should include confessing one's less-than-perfect works?
> 
> Or do you consider your works can/should/must measure up to the works Christ performed on the cross in any way?
> 
> What is the point in confessing faith in the blood of Christ, if you think it is contingent upon you to improve upon it in any way?  How could you possibly do that?  No amount of repentance in the world can ever elevate us to the perfection and sinlessness of the Son of Man who worked salvation on the cross.


[mod deleted]

2 Corinthians 7:10 
For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death

If we stumble in faith and sin, repentance is the only way back to God.  Hebrews 6:4--this is why this scripture says that once God knows that a believer won't return--it's impossible to *RENEW* them to repentance.  

Repentance is our light unto our path back to God if we stumble and commit sin.  Repentance is a life-long process---it's the only way a believer can grow, learn and their faith become stronger in the Lord.

----------


## RJB

> Impossible that my works can measure up to the works Christ performed on the cross.


Congratulations, TER.  Your reposting of this makes it the 1 millionth time an Orthodox or Catholic explained this on RPFs.  Your prize is that you will be ignored as you re-post this a million more as well as being ignored when you state that you don't worship icons and respond to countless other ridiculous slanders.  Maybe after 3 million posts they will read and understand your words.

----------


## TER

> Congratulations, TER.  Your reposting of this makes it the 1 millionth time an Orthodox or Catholic explained this on RPFs.  Your prize is that you will be ignored as you re-post this a million more as well as being ignored when you state that you don't worship icons and respond to countless other ridiculous slanders.  Maybe after 3 million posts they will read and understand your words.


Wait, I don't even get a toaster or something?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Congratulations, TER.  Your reposting of this makes it the 1 millionth time an Orthodox or Catholic explained this on RPFs.  Your prize is that you will be ignored as you re-post this a million more as well as being ignored when you state that you don't worship icons and countless other ridiculous slanders.  Maybe after 3 million posts they will read and understand your words.


I know TER says that, but I do not believe that he actually believes it, based on other beliefs that he holds.  

I explained this in the other thread.

----------


## Terry1

> Congratulations, TER.  Your reposting of this makes it the 1 millionth time an Orthodox or Catholic explained this on RPFs.  Your prize is that you will be ignored as you re-post this a million more as well as being ignored when you state that you don't worship icons and respond to countless other ridiculous slanders.  Maybe after 3 million posts they will read and understand your words.


ROFL!  Yeah, but this is how it's done in my line of work too.  I work with the mentally handicapped and I have repeated the same things so often to them every day that it's something the hubby says I mumble in my sleep---things like--turn out the bathroom light, NO--don't pee on the floor--stop pouring your milk in your plate--no, that shoe's on the wrong foot--you're underwear are on backwards dear.  Just everyday stuff that has to be repeated over and over and over again until after a year so--they remember something.

----------


## TER

> I know TER says that, but I do not believe that he actually believes it, based on other beliefs that he holds.  
> 
> I explained this in the other thread.


Okay, only 999,999 more times until the next prize...  Might even happen before Easter!

----------


## Terry1

> Wait, I don't even get a toaster or something?


LOL, how about a Dragon Dictate program--saves the typing.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's very interesting Kevin.  I'd like to ask you what all of the hoopla is that Paul speaks about "enduring" and that he "kept his faith" and "finished the race" in this life.  Just what do you suppose Paul was saying to you here then?  
> If faith is a gift, they why are we told that we must "keep faith". * If it's a gift and one can never fall*--then why does Paul tell us that we can, along with Hebrews 6:4 and John 15:5.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Pauls Valedictory
> 
> 6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand.  7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.  8 Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.*



One has nothing to do with the other. Yes it is a free gift no one  can take or snatch away. It is from God, who keeps His promises and  Covenants. Why do you equate "falling" with losing your salvation. Paul  is speaking of sanctification once a Believer is saved, not doing  anything to keep our salvation. Again...either salvation is a free gift  by faith in Jesus' finished work or it is not. You cannot ever combine  faith and grace with works of men. ALL our works are as "filthy rags" to  a Holy and Perfect God. The Crown of Righteousness is one of only 5 Crowns that the Believer may possibly inherit at the Bema Seat. Paul again is not equating the race with salvation, but sanctification and obedience and holy living.

----------


## RJB

Well TER, I guess you can re-explain it again.  Recommend they take ginkgo biloba and B-complex.  They might remember your post this time.




> I know TER says that,* but I do not believe that he actually believes it,* based on other beliefs that he holds.


This add is brought to you inpart today by our sponsors at 1-900-psychic.
Wanna know what's in the hearts of other men?  Call 1-900-psychic and ask for F-fanatic and some of his psychic friends he's invited over to troll the forum in the last month.  Are you worried they won't really know the answer for the deeply held religious beliefs of others?  No problem, they'll be sure to make a nice strawman for you.  

Good night all.  I don't have the energy for this garbage to night LOL

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, do you understand the difference between the two laws that Paul is talking about in his epistles.  Why does Paul tell you to do a "work of faith" and not to do "a work of the law"?  Do you understand what he's saying in those verses?
> *
> Romans 2:15 
> who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
> 
> John 10: 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;  38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe[d] that the Father is in Me, and I in Him. *


Romans- God  															will judge the  															Gentile nations for  															their active conduct  															in accordance with  															the unwritten law  															inscribed in their hearts  															with their moral  															conscience bearing  															witness in them by  															either excusing or  															accusing them in the  															day when God shall  															judge the secrets of  															men by Jesus  															according to the  															Gospel.

John- Jesus is speaking of Himself and His miracles being proof of who He says He is.

----------


## Terry1

> Well TER, I guess you can re-explain it again.  Recommend they take ginkgo biloba and B-complex.  They might remember your post this time.
> 
> 
> This add is brought to you inpart today by our sponsors at 1-900-psychic.
> Wanna know what's in the hearts of other men?  Call 1-900-psychic and ask for F-fanatic and some of his psychic friends he's invited over to troll the forum in the last month.  Are you worried they won't really know the answer for the deeply held religious beliefs of others?  No problem, they'll be sure to make a nice strawman for you.  
> 
> Good night all.  I don't have the energy for this garbage to night LOL


+reps

----------


## Kevin007

> "gasp"---Kevin--why is God telling the churches/believers that He will judge them "according to their works"?  Why do you think names are blotted from the Book of LIfe?
> 
> *Revelation 2:23 
> And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.*


Judging them according to their works at the Bema Seat- the Judgement Seat of Christ- everyone there is a BELIEVER. Awards (5 Crowns possible) are given to those whose works are not burned and turned into wood hay or stubble. Not talking of salvation AT ALL.

  Believers will also be judged by Christ, but since Christ’s   righteousness has been imputed to us and our names are written in the   book of life, we will be rewarded, but not punished, according to our   deeds. (Romans 14:10-12)

----------


## Terry1

> One has nothing to do with the other. Yes it is a free gift no one  can take or snatch away. It is from God, who keeps His promises and  Covenants. Why do you equate "falling" with losing your salvation. Paul  is speaking of sanctification once a Believer is saved, not doing  anything to keep our salvation. Again...either salvation is a free gift  by faith in Jesus' finished work or it is not. You cannot ever combine  faith and grace with works of men. ALL our works are as "filthy rags" to  a Holy and Perfect God. The Crown of Righteousness is one of only 5 Crowns that the Believer may possibly inherit at the Bema Seat. Paul again is not equating the race with salvation, but sanctification and obedience and holy living.


So your version of salvation = free gift with no responsibility or accountability thereafter.  Sort of reminds me of this:

----------


## Kevin007

> *We are not to do the works of the old law, but we are to do the works of faith which are the "fruits of the Spirit"...do you understand the difference?*
> 
> James 2:18 
> Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
> 
> James 2:20 
> But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
> 
> James 2:26 
> ...




NO, YOU misinterpret these verses....that is your problem.

----------


## Nang

> the criteria He will use to judge if we are to enter within is how we, in our lives and in our relationships, have conformed our wills to His will and how we have grown in the image of Christ through our selfless love for God and our neighbors.


There is no "if" or judgment required of us, in order to enter in the Kingdom of God.

We are already adopted as sons of God and part of His royal priesthood.  We are already IN, because we are IN Jesus Christ, by His redeeming grace and power.  We cannot conform ourselves to His image.  God conforms us to the image of Christ.

IOW's salvation and entering the Kingdom of God is not future.  It is now.  The Holy Spirit has given us the earnest (down-payment and guarantee) of our inheritiance in Jesus Christ.  Ephesianis 1:13-14.

And salvation according to His mercy and grace is unconditional.  His New Covenant is unconditional.  There are no conditions, other that God chose us in His Son, and has performed all covenant on our behalf.

We do not have to work or add to His work, to keep this inheritance nor worry about losing it, for there is no more judgment or curse that can be applied to our account, for we have been forensically imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, forever!  Jesus has promised He will not lose a one of us!  John 6:39

Everlasting life is already ours, and it cannot be lost.

Amazing Grace!

May God receive all glory for the wonderful and great salvation He has worked for His own!

----------


## Kevin007

> So your version of salvation = free gift with no responsibility or accountability thereafter.  Sort of reminds me of this:


actually my "version" of salvation is the same one Jesus speaks of. "DOING" good works once you are saved does not get you or keep you saved. If you are not trusting ONLY in Jesus for YOUR salvation, you are in big trouble.

----------


## Kevin007

Terry- you do good works BECAUSE you are saved (past tense), not in order to GET saved.

----------


## TER

> There is no "if" or judgment required of us, in order to enter in the Kingdom of God.
> 
> We are already adopted as sons of God and part of His royal priesthood.  We are already IN, because we are IN Jesus Christ, by His redeeming grace and power.  We cannot conform ourselves to His image.  God conforms us to the image of Christ.
> 
> IOW's salvation and entering the Kingdom of God is not future.  It is now.  The Holy Spirit has given us the earnest (down-payment and guarantee) of our inheritiance in Jesus Christ.  Ephesianis 1:13-14.
> 
> And salvation according to His mercy and grace is unconditional.  His New Covenant is unconditional.  There are no conditions, other that God chose us in His Son, and has performed all covenant on our behalf.
> 
> We do not have to work or add to His work, to keep this inheritance nor worry about losing it, for there is no more judgment or curse that can be applied to our account, for we have been forensically imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, forever!  Jesus has promised He will not lose a one of us!  John 6:39
> ...


I understand that is your belief.  I am trying to explain to you what the Patristic belief is.

----------


## Nang

> If you are not trusting ONLY in Jesus for YOUR salvation, you are in big trouble.


+rep

Amen and Amen.

----------


## Nang

> I understand that is your belief.  I am trying to explain to you what the Patristic belief is.



Well, I think I better deserve the toaster . . .

----------


## Terry1

> [/U]
> 
> NO, YOU misinterpret these verses....that is your problem.


Then let's see your interpretation of these verses. 


 James 2:20 
 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

----------


## Nang

> [mod delete]


An absolute, 100% false accusation and misrepresentation of my faith . . .[mod delete]

----------


## Kevin007

> An absolute, 100% false accusation and misrepresentation of my faith . . . [mod delete].


reminds me how all of our "opponents" pull out the lazy, do no good works card.

----------


## Nang

> Then let's see your interpretation of these verses. 
> 
> 
>  James 2:20 
>  But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
> 
>  1 Thessalonians 1:3 
>  Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> 
> ...


egads!  Again with these verses?

And you demand others interpret them, when you cannot understand them or rightly interpret them yourself?

Don't you have any other arguments, just for entertainment sake?

----------


## Terry1

> +rep
> 
> Amen and Amen.


Kevin disagrees with you on the free will, hence you have nothing to be "amening" about unless you're hard up for support.

----------


## Kevin007

> Then let's see your interpretation of these verses. 
> 
> 
>  James 2:20 
>  But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
> 
>  1 Thessalonians 1:3 
>  Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> 
> ...


one by one or all 3?

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin disagrees with you on the free will, hence you have nothing to be "amening" about unless you're hard up for support.


free will isn't a salvation issue or OSAS issue.

Terry please keep in mind that we, or at least I, agree with you on SOME things. Not everything do I disagree with you.

----------


## Terry1

> egads!  Again with these verses?
> 
> And you demand others interpret them, when you cannot understand them or rightly interpret them yourself?
> 
> Don't you have any other arguments, just for entertainment sake?


Those verses scare you don't they Nang.

----------


## Nang

> reminds me how all of our "opponents" pull out the lazy, do no good works card.


Yep .. over and over and over and over . . .

ad nauseum!

They do not run real deep. . .

----------


## TER

> Well, I think I better deserve the toaster . . .


lol, I do revert back often to the Church Fathers for explanation.  But there is a reason for that because I value their interpretations better then my own or anyone else's frankly in determining what the orthodox faith is.

----------


## Nang

> Those verses scare you don't they Nang.


You scare me, Terry.

----------


## Terry1

> free will isn't a salvation issue or OSAS issue.


It isn't?  So someone who believes that we have no choice with regard to our wanting to remain and abide in Christ isn't a "salvation issue"?  How so? Nang doesn't believe in the need to continue repenting either--is that a "salvation issue"?

----------


## Nang

> lol, I do revert back often to the Church Fathers for explanation.  But there is a reason for that because I value their interpretations better then my own or anyone else's frankly in determining what the orthodox faith is.



Hate to bring this up, TER, but those "Church Fathers" were sinners and fallible.

Best to depend upon Scripture to interpret Scripture, through the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit, who leads the sons of God into all truth.  John 16:13

----------


## TER

> Hate to bring this up, TER, but those "Church Fathers" were sinners and fallible.
> 
> Best to depend upon Scripture to interpret Scripture, through the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit, who leads the sons of God into all truth.  John 16:13


Should I rely on my own interpretation or yours?

----------


## Nang

> It isn't?  So someone who believes that we have no choice with regard to our wanting to remain and abide in Christ isn't a "salvation issue"?  How so? *Nang doesn't believe in the need to continue repenting either*--is that a "salvation issue"?


[mod delete]

And free-will unto salvation is a myth.

----------


## Terry1

> You scare me, Terry.


Go ahead Nang--take a shot at interpreting those scriptures yourself, or aren't you up for that?  How about interpreting Hebrews 6:4 while you're at it.

----------


## Nang

> Should I rely on my own interpretation or yours?


Neither.

Scripture interprets scripture.

----------


## Kevin007

> lol, I do revert back often to the Church Fathers for explanation.  But there is a reason for that because I value their interpretations better then my own or anyone else's frankly in determining what the orthodox faith is.


Terry, I can only speak for myself- more power to you. But if you look at what some of the Church Fathers added to the Word; this is the problem.....

----------


## Kevin007

> It isn't?  So someone who believes that we have no choice with regard to our wanting to remain and abide in Christ isn't a "salvation issue"?  How so? Nang doesn't believe in the need to *continue repenting* either--is that a "salvation issue"?


Terry- please do not put words in my mouth or Nang's. Repentance is necessary to realize you have sinned against a Holy God. Making Jesus Lord of your life is true repentance. You do not have to keep repenting 24/7 in fear that you might lose your salvation.

----------


## Terry1

> *You are a liar.*
> 
> And free-will unto salvation is a myth.

----------


## Kevin007

> There is no "if" or judgment required of us, in order to enter in the Kingdom of God.
> 
> We are already adopted as sons of God and part of His royal priesthood.  We are already IN, because we are IN Jesus Christ, by His redeeming grace and power.  We cannot conform ourselves to His image.  God conforms us to the image of Christ.
> 
> IOW's salvation and entering the Kingdom of God is not future.  It is now.  The Holy Spirit has given us the earnest (down-payment and guarantee) of our inheritiance in Jesus Christ.  Ephesianis 1:13-14.
> 
> And salvation according to His mercy and grace is unconditional.  His New Covenant is unconditional.  There are no conditions, other that God chose us in His Son, and has performed all covenant on our behalf.
> 
> We do not have to work or add to His work, to keep this inheritance nor worry about losing it, for there is no more judgment or curse that can be applied to our account, for we have been forensically imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, forever!  Jesus has promised He will not lose a one of us!  John 6:39
> ...


good stuff here.....

----------


## Terry1

> Terry- please do not put words in my mouth or Nang's. Repentance is necessary to realize you have sinned against a Holy God. Making Jesus Lord of your life is true repentance. You do not have to keep repenting 24/7 in fear that you might lose your salvation.


Repentance is something believers do when the Holy Spirit prompts their conscience to something they need to stop doing and repent of and yes---it can be a daily exercise in faith with some people.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, I can only speak for myself- more power to you. But if you look at what some of the Church Fathers added to the Word; this is the problem.....


You made the claim that I misrepresented those scriptures.  If you would be so kind to correct me and give me your interpretation, then maybe I would see the light.

----------


## Kevin007

> Repentance is something believers do when the Holy Spirit prompts their conscience to something they need to stop doing and repent of and yes---it can be a daily exercise in faith with some people.


What I am trying to say I guess is this; if you do not repent of a sin- known or unknown to yourself, you do not lose your salvation.

----------


## Kevin007

> You made the claim that I misrepresented those scriptures.  If you would be so kind to correct me and give me your interpretation, then maybe I would see the light.


I had asked you all 3 in one reply or take them one by one... you never answered

----------


## TER

> Neither.
> 
> Scripture interprets scripture.


Words on a page need someone to interpret them.  If this wasn't the case, then there would be no divisions in Christianity and everyone would believe the same thing.  The reality is, however, that we can look at the same verses and the same Bible as a whole and interpret things completely differently.  This is exactly how the great heresies happened in the past with everyone referencing this line of Scripture or that to prove their position.  How much easier it would be if the Scriptures actually interpreted themselves.  But the reality is, that is not the case.   Which, again, St. Paul exhorted Bishop Timothy to seek instruction and knowledge through the Church whereby he might know the truth and correct interpretation.  Otherwise, there would be thousands and thousands of different doctrines and beliefs, many contradictory, which is what has happened with Protestantism which ironically is the only branch of Christianity that espouses such a view as "Scripture interprets Scripture".  The irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post 
> 
> It isn't? So someone who believes that we have no choice with regard to our wanting to remain and abide in Christ isn't a "salvation issue"? How so? Nang doesn't believe in the need to continue repenting either--is that a "salvation issue"?








> *You are a liar.*
> 
> And free-will unto salvation is a myth.


What am I lying about?  Unless you're changing your mind and deciding that you do believe in the need for continual repentance.

----------


## Terry1

> What I am trying to say I guess is this; if you do not repent of a sin- known or unknown to yourself, you do not lose your salvation.


Then please correct me and interpret Hebrews 6:4 and John 15:5.

----------


## Kevin007

> Then let's see your interpretation of these verses. 
> 
> 
> *James 2:20 
>  But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?*
> 
>  1 Thessalonians 1:3 
>  Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
> 
> ...



 James is making it clear  															that there is no  															such thing as easy  															believeism.  															Paul, James and  															others make 2  															things clear: Our works do not  															save us, but if we are truly  															saved, we will  															produce good works  															via the HS  															living within us.

----------


## Terry1

> I had asked you all 3 in one reply or take them one by one... you never answered


What?  If you meant that you *answered* all 3 in one reply---that is not an interpretation of those scriptures--yes each one if you please, after all there is only three.

----------


## Kevin007

1 Thessalonians 1:3 
 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and  patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our  Father;

Paul is only thanking the Thess. for their faith. Faith DOES LEAD TO WORKS but works do not lead to faith OR salvation.

----------


## Terry1

> James is making it clear  															that there is no  															such thing as easy  															believeism.  															Paul, James and  															others make 2  															things clear: Our works do not  															save us, but if we are truly  															saved, we will  															produce good works  															via the HS  															living within us.


..

So this is your interpretation of James 2:17?  You said that James is saying in this scripture that there's no such thing as "easy believeism. ??  James is telling you that faith without works is dead.  How do you read "no such thing as "easy believism" into that?

Paul is telling you that you should never cease doing your "works of faith".  Which is the same thing that James is telling you.  So where do you get that Paul is telling you the exact opposite in those 1st and 2nd Thes scriptures?

----------


## Terry1

> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
>  Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and  patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our  Father;
> 
> Paul is only thanking the Thess. for their faith. Faith DOES LEAD TO WORKS but works do not lead to faith OR salvation.


So now you're saying that Paul is "thanking the Thes." instead of instructing them to never cease doing their works of faith and *LABOUR* OF LOVE?

----------


## Kevin007

easier to follow and others to reply also...



2 Thessalonians 1:11 
 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you  worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his  goodness, and the work of faith with power...

Paul is just praying for the Saints here, wanting the result to be twofold; That the name of Jesus would be glorified in them and then they too would be glorified in Him.

----------


## Kevin007

> So now you're saying that Paul is "thanking the Thes." instead of instructing them to never cease doing their works of faith and *LABOUR* OF LOVE?


People asked Jesus what they could do to  please God: “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus  immediately points them to faith: “The *work* of God is this: to *believe*  in the *one* he has *sent*” (John 6:28-29).

----------


## Kevin007

> ..
> 
> So this is your interpretation of James 2:17?  You said that James is saying in this scripture that there's no such thing as "“easy believeism”. ??  James is telling you that faith without works is dead.  How do you read "no such thing as "easy believism" into that?
> 
> Paul is telling you that you should never cease doing your "works of faith".  Which is the same thing that James is telling you.  So where do you get that Paul is telling you the exact opposite in those 1st and 2nd Thes scriptures?


James is talking about the RELATIONSHIP between faith in works. We are justified by faith alone. (Abraham)

----------


## Terry1

> easier to follow and others to reply also...
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
>  Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you  worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his  goodness, and the work of faith with power...
> 
> Paul is just praying for the Saints here, wanting the result to be twofold; That the name of Jesus would be glorified in them and then they too would be glorified in Him.


Isn't rather Paul telling them that God would count them worthy of their calling and they fulfill all of His goodness and their work of faith with power, which is the grace of God.  The "power" is grace and the works are of faith via obedience to the Holy Spirit---They are answering their calling with a "work of faith" with power.

----------


## Terry1

> James is talking about the RELATIONSHIP between faith in works. We are justified by faith alone. (Abraham)


That's not what James is saying though is it.  This is what James is clearly saying here: 

*James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone..*

James just told you the exact opposite of what you just said.  There are no scriptures in the Bible that say "faith alone" saves.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's not what James is saying though is it.  This is what James is clearly saying here: 
> 
> *James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone..*
> 
> James just told you the exact opposite of what you just said.  There are no scriptures in the Bible that say "faith alone" saves.


James is not saying that works save or keep you saved- can you agree on this before we continue?

----------


## Kevin007

> That's not what James is saying though is it.  This is what James is clearly saying here: 
> 
> *James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone..*
> 
> James just told you the exact opposite of what you just said.  There are no scriptures in the Bible that say "faith alone" saves.


there are no verse that say trinity either......

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's not what James is saying though is it.  This is what James is clearly saying here: 
> 
> *James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone..*
> 
> James just told you the exact opposite of what you just said.  There are no scriptures in the Bible that say "faith alone" saves.


Brimming with WIN^^

----------


## Kevin007

> ..
> 
> *So this is your interpretation of James 2:17?*  You said that James is saying in this scripture that there's no such thing as "“easy believeism”. ??  James is telling you that faith without works is dead.  How do you read "no such thing as "easy believism" into that?
> 
> Paul is telling you that you should never cease doing your "works of faith".  Which is the same thing that James is telling you.  So where do you get that Paul is telling you the exact opposite in those 1st and 2nd Thes scriptures?


Notice that James begins this section by  using the example of someone who *says* he has faith, verses 14.

----------


## Terry1

> James is not saying that works save or keep you saved- can you agree on this before we continue?



James is saying that saving faith must be accompanied by works that are done in obedience to the Holy Spirit.  Without these "works of faith" as Paul calls them---then James is telling you that your faith is dead.  John 15:5 tells you the exact same thing.  As a branch/believer in the True Vine/Jesus who bears no fruit, which are "works of faith" that allow us to bear fruit are cut off if they wither and die without bearing any fruit.  The only way to "bear fruit" is through faith in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's not what James is saying though is it.  This is what James is clearly saying here: 
> 
> *James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone..*
> 
> James just told you the exact opposite of what you just said.  There are no scriptures in the Bible that say "faith alone" saves.



Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."




Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

----------


## Kevin007

> James is saying that *saving faith* must be accompanied by works that are done in obedience to the Holy Spirit.  Without these "works of faith" as Paul calls them---then James is telling you that your faith is dead.  John 15:5 tells you the exact same thing.  As a branch/believer in the True Vine/Jesus who bears no fruit, which are "works of faith" that allow us to bear fruit are cut off if they wither and die without bearing any fruit.  The only way to "bear fruit" is through faith in obedience to the Holy Spirit.


saving faith is faith in Jesus Christ alone, apart from the works of the law.

----------


## Terry1

> James is not saying that works save or keep you saved- can you agree on this before we continue?


The works you are talking about is what Paul tells us not to do and those are the dead works under the Old Mosaic law that were done to obtain righteousness.  Those are the "works" that we're not suppose to do.  Paul tells you do to the "works of faith", just the same as James is telling you to do and that faith without these works is dead.  Do you understand the difference between these two laws?

This is why you're struggling to reconcile these scriptures with your belief Kevin.  You're not understanding the difference between the two laws that Paul was referring to.  One law you do and the other you don't.  One law is of faith and the other law is of dead works.  These are two entirely different covenants Paul was referring to.

----------


## Nang

> There are no scriptures in the Bible that say "faith alone" saves.


Ephesians 2:8-9

But I am sure Sola_Fide has probably given you this scripture a hundred times, without it penetrating your consciousness.

----------


## Kevin007

> The works you are talking about is what Paul tells us not to do and those are the dead works under the Old Mosaic law that were done to obtain righteousness.  Those are the "works" that we're not suppose to do.  Paul tells you do to the "works of faith", just the same as James is telling you to do and that faith without these works are dead.  Do you understand the difference between these two laws?


works of faith? Have you read Romans? works of faith is NOT faith in works.

----------


## Kevin007

> Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> But I am sure Sola_Fide has probably given you this scripture a hundred times, without it penetrating your consciousness.


my sig? I cannot see it, I think this is my sig.. I have sigs disabled...

----------


## Kevin007

> The works you are talking about is what Paul tells us not to do and those are the dead works under the Old Mosaic law that were done to obtain righteousness.  Those are the "works" that we're not suppose to do.  Paul tells you do to the "works of faith", just the same as James is telling you to do and that faith without these works is dead.  Do you understand the difference between these two laws?
> 
> This is why you're struggling to reconcile these scripture with your belief Kevin.  You're not understand the difference between the two laws that Paul was referring to.  One law you do and the other you don't.


WORKS do not save Terry- do you understand this BASIC CONCEPT? We do not do "works of faith" in order to get saved or stay saved, but to become more sanctified in Jesus.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Words on a page need someone to interpret them.  If this wasn't the case, then there would be no divisions in Christianity and everyone would believe the same thing.  The reality is, however, that we can look at the same verses and the same Bible as a whole and interpret things completely differently.  This is exactly how the great heresies happened in the past with everyone referencing this line of Scripture or that to prove their position.  How much easier it would be if the Scriptures actually interpreted themselves.  But the reality is, that is not the case.   Which, again, St. Paul exhorted Bishop Timothy to seek instruction and knowledge through the Church whereby he might know the truth and correct interpretation.  Otherwise, there would be thousands and thousands of different doctrines and beliefs, many contradictory, which is what has happened with Protestantism which ironically is the only branch of Christianity that espouses such a view as "Scripture interprets Scripture".  The irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


+1

----------


## Terry1

> saving faith is faith in Jesus Christ alone, apart from the works of the law.


Which law Kevin?

----------


## Nang

> The works you are talking about is what Paul tells us not to do and those are the dead works under the Old Mosaic law that were done to obtain righteousness.  Those are the "works" that we're not suppose to do.  Paul tells you do to the "works of faith", just the same as James is telling you to do and that faith without these works are dead.  Do you understand the difference between these two laws?



Paul never said to not obey the Law of God.

That is the problem . . . man is commanded to obey the Law of God, but he cannot do so successfully.

Thus the need for a Savior . . . who DID all the Law of God for on behalf of His people.

This is the very gospel message of grace.  The Law MUST be kept perfectly, and only Jesus Christ succeeded, and it is His righteousness achieved by sinlessly obeying ALL the Law, that is imputed to the sons of God.

In God's eyes, we keep all the Law, through faith in the obedience of Jesus Christ, and we are declared righteous in the eyes of God on that legal basis.

To discard the obligation to the Law, apart from trusting in Christ to fulfill the Law on our behalf, is the heresy Antinomianism.

You declare lawlessness, and then tell unsuspecting souls they must keep the Law to get to heaven apart from the cross work of Jesus Christ, which places an impossible burden upon anyone who bothers to listen to your lies.

Despicable. . .

And worse, but I will get banned if I say more . . .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> WORKS do not save Terry- do you understand this BASIC CONCEPT? We do not do "works of faith" in order to get saved or stay saved, but to become more sanctified in Jesus.


Terry clearly understands this if you _read the thread_.  Why do you spend so much time arguing in a circular manner?  It's very unproductive and boring.  I notice S_F and FF doing that as well pretty regularly. :/

----------


## Terry1

> WORKS do not save Terry- do you understand this BASIC CONCEPT? We do not do "works of faith" in order to get saved or stay saved, but to become more sanctified in Jesus.


Kevin---"works of faith" are done under the law of faith under the New Covenant.  Dead works are something that was done under the curse of the Mosaic Law.  Paul is telling you not to do the dead works because they are of the Old Law---now this is why Paul tells you do do "works of faith" and why James tells you that faith alone is dead without works.  You're still not getting it.  Paul and James both are referring to two different laws when they tell you to do one and not the other.

You have to remember that Paul was speaking to the Jews who were living under the old Mosaic law at that time.  He is attempting to show them how they should now live under the law of faith by doing "works of faith" and not dead works under the old law.  This is what Paul is telling you in those scriptures when he talks about the circumcision.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> But I am sure Sola_Fide has probably given you this scripture a hundred times, without it penetrating your consciousness.


Yeah, I know I have



> +1


Here's the thing, not everything is a gospel issue.  For instance, Nang (If I remember correctly, I could be wrong about this) believes that believer's children should be baptized as infants.  I believe in baptism of believers only.  This is not a gospel issue.  Nang is also amillennial, whereas I hold to a historic premillennial view.  This is also not a gospel issue. So, whichever of us is right on these issues, its not going to affect our salvation.  That doesn't mean they aren't worth discussing, digging through the scriptures to come to the most sensible viewpoints on secondary issues is an encouragement to study scripture, and sharpen each other.  But it doesn't really matter, for instance, if premillennial or amillennial eschatology is correct.  Its worth studying, and its unclear to encourage Christians to study, but its not going to affect anyone's salvation.

By contrast, the gospel is painfully clear in the Bible.  That people happen to be stupid enough to miss the message is not relevant.  Catholics, EOs, and blatant cultists arguing clearly ridiculous views based on out of context scriptures does not proof a need for any absolute authority outside of scripture (besides, who interprets the interpreter?)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Terry clearly understands this if you _read the thread_.  Why do you spend so much time arguing in a circular manner?  It's very unproductive and boring.  I notice S_F and FF doing that as well pretty regularly. :/


You're implying that Terry's posts are actually understandable.  They are not.  At least SF and I leave no ambiguity, we say what we mean and we mean what we say.

----------


## Terry1

> You're implying that Terry's posts are actually understandable.  They are not.  At least SF and I leave no ambiguity, we say what we mean and we mean what we say.


If I were an artist, I guess I could color you a picture, but then--you'd need an interpreter for that too.

----------


## Nang

> Words on a page need someone to interpret them.  If this wasn't the case, then there would be no divisions in Christianity and everyone would believe the same thing.  The reality is, however, that we can look at the same verses and the same Bible as a whole and interpret things completely differently.  This is exactly how the great heresies happened in the past with everyone referencing this line of Scripture or that to prove their position.  How much easier it would be if the Scriptures actually interpreted themselves.  But the reality is, that is not the case.   Which, again, St. Paul exhorted Bishop Timothy to seek instruction and knowledge through the Church whereby he might know the truth and correct interpretation.  Otherwise, there would be thousands and thousands of different doctrines and beliefs, many contradictory, which is what has happened with Protestantism which ironically is the only branch of Christianity that espouses such a view as "Scripture interprets Scripture".  The irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad.



PLEASE do not operate like Terry and misrepresent my views or denigrate my beliefs.  

You are leaving out the Holy Spirit and my confessed dependence upon Him to lead me into all truth (John 16:13) as I compare scripture with scripture.

You choose to depend upon your Church Fathers to interpret scripture; I choose to depend upon God the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.

Do not claim otherwise, when I have already told you my prayerful approach to bible study.

----------


## TER

> PLEASE do not operate like Terry and misrepresent my views or denigrate my beliefs.  
> 
> You are leaving out the Holy Spirit and my confessed dependence upon Him to lead me into all truth (John 16:13) as I compare scripture with scripture.
> 
> You choose to depend upon your Church Fathers to interpret scripture; I choose to depend upon God the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.
> 
> Do not claim otherwise, when I have already told you my prayerful approach to bible study.


You are choosing your interpretations over the Church Fathers, and then saying that it is the Holy Spirit.  Why should I believe the Holy Spirit did it for you and not for the Church Fathers, especially when many of  your beliefs are innovations which are unsupported in the first 1500 years of Christianity?

----------


## Nang

> Yeah, I know I have
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, not everything is a gospel issue.  For instance, Nang (If I remember correctly, I could be wrong about this) believes that believer's children should be baptized as infants.  I believe in baptism of believers only.  This is not a gospel issue.


You are correct, and for the record, we have practiced both modes of baptism.

When we were members of the Presbyterian church, we went along with paedobaptisms.  Later, when we founded a Reformed Baptist church, we baptized adults and confessing children in our outside pool.  We understand both points of view and argued neither (although the older we get and the more we study Covenant Theology, the more in favor we are with baptizing infants from Christian households).

But one must take a stand, as Kevin is doing, to testify that salvation comes by grace through faith, apart from works.  

Any kind of trust in works, denies the saving grace of God, and jeopardizes one's soul.

----------


## Nang

> You are choosing your interpretations over the Church Fathers, and then saying that it is the Holy Spirit.


Do you call me a liar?





> Why should I believe the Holy Spirit did it for you and not for the Church Fathers, especially when many of  your beliefs are innovations which are unsupported in the first 1500 years of Christianity?


Perhaps because they have traded tradition for scripture over the years; letting tradition cloud whatever guidance the Holy Spirit gives them?

For your own sake, you should believe John 16:13.

It is His commission to teach all Christians, all truth.

He is infallible God.  He inspired the Holy Scripture.

He is the divine authority in such matters; far exceeding the authority of your fallible church.

----------


## Terry1

> Paul never said to not obey the Law of God.
> 
> That is the problem . . . man is commanded to obey the Law of God, but he cannot do so successfully..


You're another one who doesn't understand the difference between the two laws that Paul refers to.  Your theology is so convoluted with Calvin's tulip doctrine, I have little hope that you'll ever see the light of understanding.




> Thus the need for a Savior . . . who DID all the Law of God for on behalf of His people.
> 
> This is the very gospel message of grace.  The Law MUST be kept perfectly, and only Jesus Christ succeeded, and it is His righteousness achieved by sinlessly obeying ALL the Law, that is imputed to the sons of God.


The Old Law that Paul refers to as "the law of dead works", Paul also calls a curse to any who attempt to live under it.  Although you disputed this before with me and I had to prove with scripture you were wrong about that too as referenced here: *Galatians 3:10 
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
*



> In God's eyes, we keep all the Law, through faith in the obedience of Jesus Christ, and we are declared righteous in the eyes of God on that legal basis.
> 
> To discard the obligation to the Law, apart from trusting in Christ to fulfill the Law on our behalf, is the heresy Antinomianism.
> 
> You declare lawlessness, and then tell unsuspecting souls they must keep the Law to get to heaven apart from the cross work of Jesus Christ, which places an impossible burden upon anyone who bothers to listen to your lies.
> 
> Despicable. . .
> 
> And worse, but I will get banned if I say more . . .


You're totally wrong Nang and that's why you can't support anything you say with scripture.  All you ever do is give meaningless commentary on Calvinism.  Where's the scripture to back up anything you claim?  When you first bounced in here, you also made the claim that God wasn't at war with satan and that satan's not to blame for sin.  I posted scripture then to prove you wrong again and again, yet you just come back with more dead commentary on Calvinism with nothing to back up anything you believe.

----------


## TER

> Do you call me a liar?


No, but I think you are very self-assured in your own interpretations.  I personally would not feel that way if I learned that the ancient Church and the early Christian Saints and Martyrs interpreted things and taught the Christian faith much differently then what I believed.




> For your own sake, you should believe John 16:13.
> 
> It is His commission to teach all Christians, all truth.
> 
> He is infallible God.  He inspired the Holy Scripture.
> 
> He is the divine authority in such matters; far exceeding the authority of your fallible church.


Okay, but that still doesn't answer my question of why I should believe your interpretation over the Church Fathers.

----------


## Nang

> No, but I think you are very self-assured in your own interpretations.  I personally would not feel that way if I learned that the ancient Church and the early Christian Saints and Martyrs interpreted things and taught the Christian faith much differently then what I believed.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but that still doesn't answer my question of why I should believe your interpretation over the Church Fathers.


It is not my interpretation.

Scripture interprets scripture, but one must study every scripture in the bible, comparing one with another, to be sure one is receiving learning from God.  Every scripture must stand the scrutiny of the entirety of the bible.  There cannot be any contradictions, for God is not the author of confusion.

----------


## TER

> It is not my interpretation.
> 
> Scripture interprets scripture, but one must study every scripture in the bible, comparing one with another, to be sure one is receiving learning from God.  Every scripture must stand the scrutiny of the entirety of the bible.  There cannot be any contradictions, for God is not the author of confusion.


Well then tell that to the tens of thousands of denominations who ascribe to Sola Scriptura and the fantasy that "Scripture interprets Scripture".

And by the way, you still haven't told me why I should believe your interpretations over the Church Fathers.

----------


## Terry1

> It is not my interpretation.
> 
> Scripture interprets scripture, but one must study every scripture in the bible, comparing one with another, to be sure one is receiving learning from God.  Every scripture must stand the scrutiny of the entirety of the bible.  There cannot be any contradictions, for God is not the author of confusion.


Scripture does not interpret scripture, the Holy Spirit does if you have Him at all.  The written word is not inerrant because it's subject to mans fallible interpretation.  The word is God and not ink on paper.

----------


## Terry1

> Well then tell that to the tens of thousands of denominations who ascribe to Sola Scriptura and the fantasy that "Scripture interprets Scripture".
> 
> And by the way, you still haven't told me why I should believe your interpretations over the Church Fathers.


+ reps!

----------


## Kevin007

> No, but I think you are very self-assured in your own interpretations.  I personally would not feel that way if I learned that the ancient Church and the early Christian Saints and Martyrs interpreted things and taught the Christian faith much differently then what I believed.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but that still doesn't answer my question of why I should believe your interpretation over the Church Fathers.


it is the tradition  of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of  God spoken by Jesus. (Matthew 15 1-6).

----------


## TER

> it is the tradition  of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of  God spoken by Jesus. (Matthew 15 1-6).


Is this your answer then?  That it is a god-awful 'tradition of man' to interpret words on paper?  Are you being serious here?  Should we just lay our heads on the pages and let our brains soak in the meanings?

----------


## Nang

> Well then tell that to the tens of thousands of denominations who ascribe to Sola Scriptura and the fantasy that "Scripture interprets Scripture".
> 
> And by the way, you still haven't told me why I should believe your interpretations over the Church Fathers.


There is no such thing as private interpretations, but there is sound, intelligent hermeneutics and careful exegesis of God's word, which I practice by comparing scripture with scripture, depending upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.  

And frankly, I could care less how you attempt to discourage me from this life-time practice, because you will not succeed.

If you depend upon tradition over the word of God, and listen to women like Terry, who claims the written word is not inerrant, you will reap what you sow.  I can only tell you that you are not in the light you think you are in, but function in a darkness that is worse than dumb-brute unbelief.

----------


## Kevin007

> Is this your answer then?  That it is a god-awful 'tradition of man' to interpret words on paper?  Are you being serious here?  Should we just lay our heads on the pages and let our brains soak in the meanings?


I think Nang we may need a *refresher* on this hermeneutics thing or I mean they might need a INTRODUCTION?

http://www.buzzardhut.net/Catho/30.htm

The Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit, not a group of men, will  		interpret Scripture for God's children and will help them to understand  		all things: 
 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the  					Father will send in my name, _he shall teach you  					all things,_ and bring all things to your  					remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 					"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, _ 					he will guide you into all truth..."_ John  					16:13 


 		The Apostle Paul recognized that the Holy Spirit was the One who  		taught him: 
 		 			 			 				 					"Which things also we speak, not in the words which  					man's wisdom teaches, but which _the Holy Ghost  					teaches;_ comparing spiritual things with  					spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:13"Now we have received, not  					the spirit of the world, but _the spirit which is  					of God;_ that we might know the things that are  					freely given to us of God." 1 Corinthians 2:12

----------


## TER

> There is no such thing as private interpretations, but there is sound, intelligent hermeneutics and careful exegesis of God's word, which I practice by comparing scripture with scripture, depending upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.  
> 
> And frankly, I could care less how you attempt to discourage me from this life-time practice, because you will not succeed.
> 
> If you depend upon tradition over the word of God, and listen to women like Terry, who claims the written word is not inerrant, you will reap what you sow.  I can only tell you that you are not in the light you think you are in, but function in a darkness that is worse than dumb-brute unbelief.


okay, maybe I am.  But just to get your answer straight here:  I should listen to your interpretation over the Fathers of the Church because you use "sound, intelligent hermeneutics and careful exegesis of God's word, which [you] practice by comparing scripture with scripture, depending upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide [you] into all truth."

So, basically, you are like some kind of Pope?

----------


## Kevin007

LONG BUT WORTHWHILE READ!


http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?1120...ible-Correctly

----------


## Nang

> okay, maybe I am.  But just to get your answer straight here:  I should listen to your interpretation over the Fathers of the Church because you use "sound, intelligent hermeneutics and careful exegesis of God's word, which [you] practice by comparing scripture with scripture, depending upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide [you] into all truth."
> 
> So, basically, you are like some kind of Pope?



You show your true colors with such a rejoinder . . . be gone with you.

I cannot waste my time with the likes of you any longer.

[mod delete]

----------


## Terry1

> There is no such thing as private interpretations, but there is sound, intelligent hermeneutics and careful exegesis of God's word, which I practice by comparing scripture with scripture, depending upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.  
> 
> And frankly, I could care less how you attempt to discourage me from this life-time practice, because you will not succeed.
> 
> If you depend upon tradition over the word of God, and listen to women like Terry, who claims the written word is not inerrant, you will reap what you sow.  I can only tell you that you are not in the light you think you are in, but function in a darkness that is worse than dumb-brute unbelief.


Are you calling me a wayward woman who's leading TER astray?  I don't think TER's wife would allow that and neither would my husband.

----------


## TER

> And frankly, I could care less how you attempt to discourage me from this life-time practice, because you will not succeed.


Your life-time of practice, Nang, is a pittance compared to the experience of the 2000 year old Orthodox Church which can trace itself in Eucharistic communion back to the very Apostles.  The same Church which wrote and canonized the Scriptures you woefully misinterpret. So, though your advanced age may impress some, I remain very unimpressed.

I think the reason you lash out so and are so quick to defend your innovative personal interpretations (and they are exactly that Nang, no matter how much you try to change it), is because having gone so far and spent so much of your life formulating your own version of Christianity, it terrifies you when you learn that your interpretations and understandings would have been casted asided as heretical by the early Church and you would have been exactly the type of believer who St. Paul exhorted the communities to shun on account of their false teachings and their pride.

Didn't want to go there Nang, but if I didn't think you had time left to change your ways, I would have stopped replying to your insulting posts a while ago.

----------


## Nang

> Are you calling me a wayward woman who's leading TER astray?  I don't think TER's wife would allow that and neither would my husband.



Why would such a thing come to your mind?

----------


## TER

> Your life-time of practice, Nang, is a pittance compared to the experience of the 2000 year old Orthodox Church which can trace itself in Eucharistic communion back to the very Apostles.  The same Church which wrote and canonized the Scriptures you woefully misinterpret. So, though your advanced age may impress some, I remain very unimpressed.
> 
> I think the reason you lash out so and are so quick to defend your innovative personal interpretations (and they are exactly that Nang, no matter how much you try to change it), is because having gone so far and spent so much of your life formulating your own version of Christianity, it terrifies you when you learn that your interpretations and understandings would have been casted asided as heretical by the early Church and you would have been exactly the type of believer who St. Paul exhorted the communities to shun on account of their false teachings and their pride.
> 
> Didn't want to go there Nang, but if I didn't think you had time left to change your ways, I would have stopped replying to your insulting posts a while ago.


Just to make it clear to others, Nang has reported this post as offensive, but calling me a dumb-brute is apparently ok!   

Nang, if you are so insecure about your faith (which I would be, considering it contradicts the Church Fathers), then instead of wasting time trying to convince us how sound and intelligent your hermeneutics are (when history and statistics suggests they aren't), why don't you pick up and read something from, say, St. Athanasius or St. Basil, or another Saint of the early Church instead of relying on the voice in your head which you have convinced is the Spirit of God Who you think is teaching you things that apparently 2000 years of martyrs and saints got completely wrong.  Either you are blinded by pride or you are a great prophet.  I am afraid that your behavior and your post history make the latter much less likely then the first.

----------


## Terry1

> Just to make it clear to others, Nang has reported this post as offensive, but calling me a dumb-brute is apparently not!  LOL  
> 
> Nang, if you are so insecure about your faith (which I would be, considering they contradict the Church Fathers), then instead of wasting time trying to convince us how sound and intelligent your hermeneutics is (when history and statistics suggests it aint), why don't you pick up and read something from, say, St. Athanasius or St. Basil, or another Saint of the early Church then obsessing over the voice in your head you have convinced is the Spirit of God teaching you things that apparently 1500 years of martyrs and saints got completely wrong.


Good grief!  She's called me everything in the book in this thread and implied worse and I haven't reported any of her posts---yet.

----------


## Terry1

> Ephesians 2:8-9
> 
> But I am sure Sola_Fide has probably given you this scripture a hundred times, without it penetrating your consciousness.


That scripture in no way indicates that anyone is saved by "faith alone", in fact it says the exact opposite.  We're saved "by grace and through faith".  No where in the word does it say anywhere that faith alone saves or that "grace alone" saves.  It's always "grace through faith" that anyone is saved.  Grace is a gift and faith the fruits of that gift---which is Jesus "working" through us.  

Look at the context of that scripture.  Grace is a noun as in "gift" and "through faith" means that something is happening there as a result of the gift of grace "through faith".  The word "through" is an adverb that can modify a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a phrase, or a clause. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or degree which is describing an *ACTON*.  That action happens "through" our faith as in a work of faith--which is the same as saying Jesus working through us to cause an action on our part.  That part we are responsible for--that part God does not give as a "gift".  That part we do willingly because we choose to abide in Christ.  Our faith is not the gift--grace is the gift and faith is maintained by us willingly obeying the Spirit of the Lord.

"NOT BY WORKS"---Again--this is Paul referring to the Old Mosaic Law of dead works and not the Law of Faith, where Paul and James tell you to do a "work of faith".  In this scripture, Paul is telling us not to do "dead works" that existed under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law.

This is where you need the veil lifted from your spiritual eyes so that you can rightly divide and discern the word of God.  God said---*Hosea 4:6 
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children
*

Ephesians 2:8-9

8* For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

*9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Terry- please do not put words in my mouth or Nang's. Repentance is necessary to realize you have sinned against a Holy God. Making Jesus Lord of your life is true repentance. You do not have to keep repenting 24/7 in fear that you might lose your salvation.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kevin007 again.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I think Nang we may need a *refresher* on this hermeneutics thing or I mean they might need a INTRODUCTION?
> 
> http://www.buzzardhut.net/Catho/30.htm
> 
> The Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit, not a group of men, will  		interpret Scripture for God's children and will help them to understand  		all things: 
>  "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the  					Father will send in my name, _he shall teach you  					all things,_ and bring all things to your  					remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 					"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, _ 					he will guide you into all truth..."_ John  					16:13 
> 
> 
>  		The Apostle Paul recognized that the Holy Spirit was the One who  		taught him: 
>  		 			 			 				 					"Which things also we speak, not in the words which  					man's wisdom teaches, but which _the Holy Ghost  					teaches;_ comparing spiritual things with  					spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:13"Now we have received, not  					the spirit of the world, but _the spirit which is  					of God;_ that we might know the things that are  					freely given to us of God." 1 Corinthians 2:12


Yes, I think many of us need, not only a refresher, but perhaps a beginners course in hermeneutics.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Relevant to the thread topic.  Just found this: 


> *Holy Icons -- Theology in Color*One of the first things that strikes a non-Orthodox visitor to an Orthodox church is the prominent place assigned to Holy Icons. The _Iconostasis_ is covered with them, while others are placed in prominent places throughout the church building. The walls and ceiling are covered with iconic murals. The Orthodox faithful prostrate themselves before Icons, kiss them, and burn candles before them. The are censed by the clergy and carried in processions. Considering the obvious importance of the Holy Icons, then, questions may certainly be raised concerning them: What do these gestures and actions mean? What is the significance of Icons? Are they not idols or the like, prohibited by the Old Testament?
> Icons have been used for prayer from the first centuries of Christianity. Sacred Tradition tells us, for example, of the existence of an Icon of the Savior during His lifetime (the "Icon-Made-Without-Hands") and of Icons of the Most Holy Theotokos immediately after Him. Sacred Tradition witnesses that the Orthodox Church had a clear understanding of the importance of Icons right from the beginning; and this understanding never changed, for it is derived from the teachings concerning the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity -- Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The use of Icons is grounded in the very essence of Christianity, since Christianity is the revelation by God-Man not only of the Word of God, but also of the Image of God; for, as St. John the Evangelist tells us, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" _(John 1:14)._
> "No one has ever seen God; only the Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known" _(John 1:18),_ the Evangelist proclaims. That is, He has revealed the Image or Icon of God. For being the brightness of [God's] glory, and the express image of [God's] person _(Hebrews 1:3),_ the Word of God in the Incarnation revealed to the world, in His own Divinity, the Image of the Father. When St. Philip asks Jesus, Lord, show us the Father, He answered him: Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father _(John 14:8-9)._ Thus as the Son is in the bosom of the Father, likewise after the Incarnation He is constubstantial with the Father, according to His divinity being the Father's Image, equal in honor to Him.
> The truth expressed above, which is revealed in Christianity, thus forms the foundations of Christian pictorial art. The Image (or Icon) not only does not contradict the essence of Christianity, but is unfailingly connected with it; and this is the foundation of the tradition that from the very beginning the Good News was brought to the world by the Church both in word and image.
> St. John of Damascus, an eigth century Father of the Church, who wrote at the height of the iconoclastic (anti-icon) controversies in the Church, explains, that because the Word of God became flesh _(John 1:14),_ we are no longer in our infancy; we have grown up, we have been given by God the power of discrimination and we know what can be depicted and what is indescribable. Since the Second Person of the Holy Trinity appeared to us in the flesh, we can portray Him and reproduce for contemplation Him Who has condescended to be seen. We can confidently represent God the Invisible -- not as an invisible being, but as one Who has made Himself visible for our sake by sharing in our flesh and blood.
> Holy Icons developed side by side with the Divine Services and, like the Services, expressed the teaching of the Church in conformity with the word of Holy Scripture. Following the teaching of the 7th Ecumenical Council, the Icon is seen not as simple art, but that there is a complete correspondence of the Icon to Holy Scripture, "for if the _Icon_ is shown by_Holy Scripture, Holy Scripture_ is made incontestably clear by the _Icon_" (_Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council,_ 6).
> As the word of Holy Scripture is an image, so the image is also a word, for, according to St. Basil the Great (379 AD):
> By depicting the divine, we are not making ourselves similar to idolaters; for it is not the material symbol that we are worshipping, but the Creator, Who became corporeal for our sake and assumed our body in order that through it He might save mankind. We also venerate the material objects through which our salvation is effected -- the blessed wood of the Cross, the Holy Gospel, Holy Relics of Saints, and, above all, the Most-Pure Body and Blood of Christ, which have grace-bestowing properties and Divine Power. Orthodox Christians do not venerate an Icon of Christ because of the nature of the wood or the paint, but rather we venerate the inanimate image of Christ with the intention of worshipping Christ Himself as God Incarnate through it.We kiss an Icon of the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of the Son of God, just as we kiss the Icons of the Saints as God's friends who struggled against sin, imitating Christ by shedding their blood for Him and followed in His footsteps. Saints are venerated as those who were glorified by God and who became, with God's help, terrible to the Enemy, and benefactors to those advancing in the faith -- but not as gods and benefactors themselves; rather they were the servants of God who were given boldness of spirit in return for their love of Him. We gaze on the depiction of their exploits and sufferings so as to sanctify ourselves through them and to spur ourselves on to zealous emulation.
> The Icons of the Saints act as a meeting point between the living members of the Church [Militant] on earth and the Saints who have passed on to the Church [Triumphant] in Heaven. The Saints depicted on the Icons are not remote, legendary figures from the past, but contemporary, personal friends. As meeting points between Heaven and earth, the Icons of Christ, His Mother, the Angels and Saints constantly remind the faithful of the invisible presence of the whole company of Heaven; they visibly express the idea of Heaven on earth.


http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/catechism.html

----------


## heavenlyboy34

~bump~ I see this topic has come up on teh forum again.  Read this thread and spare yourself 20 pages of back and forth.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Just found this toady and thought I'd put it here for people reading this by St John of Damascus.  
https://www.christianhistoryinstitut...n-of-damascus/



> Always aware of my own unworthiness, I would have kept silent and  merely confessed my shortcomings to God, but all things are good at the  right time. I see the Church which God founded on the Apostles and  Prophets with the cornerstone of Christ his Son, tossed on an angry sea,  beaten by rushing waves, and shaken by the assaults of evil spirits. I  see rips in the seamless robe of Christ which wicked men have tried to  pull apart, and His body cut into pieces (i.e. the word of God and the  ancient tradition of the Church). Because of this I have decided it is  wrong to hold my tongue, remembering the warning in the Bible: “If you  see the sword coming and do not warn your brother, I will hold you  guilty of his blood.” [Ez. 33.8] Fear compelled me to speak. The truth  was stronger than the majesty of kings.
> Now, our opponents say, “God commanded Moses the law-giver, 'You will  worship the Lord your God, and only him, and not make an image for  yourself of anything in heaven above, or on the earth below.' “ [Ex.  20:3-4] But they are wrong, and do not know the Scriptures. The letter  kills while the spirit gives life, [2 Cor. 3:6] and they fail to find  the spiritual meaning hidden in the letter. I say to these people, the  Lord who taught you this would teach you more. Listen to the law-giver’s  interpretation of this law in Deuteronomy: “This is to stop you looking  up to the heavens and, seeing the sun, moon and stars, being deceived  by error and worshipping and serving them.” [Deut. 4.19] The whole point  of this is that we should not adore a created thing more than the  Creator, nor give true worship to anything but him. But worship of false  gods is not the same as venerating holy images.
>  Again, God says, “You shall not have any gods other than me. You  shall not make yourself a graven image, or any likeness. You shall not  adore them or serve them, for I am the Lord thy God.” [Deut. 5.7-9] You  see that he forbids image—making to avoid idolatry, and because it is  impossible to make an image of the immeasurable, invisible God. As St  Paul said at the Areopagus, “As we are the offspring of God, we must not  imagine God to be like gold, silver, stone, or anything created by  humans.” [Acts 17.29] But these instructions were given to the Jews  because they were prone to idolatry. We, on the other hand, are no  longer tied to apron strings. We have outgrown superstitious error, and  know God in truth, worshipping him alone, enjoying the fullness of his  knowledge. We are no longer children but adults. We receive our habit of  mind from God, and know what may be depicted and what may not. The  Scripture says, “You have not seen his face.” [Ex. 33.20] How wise the  Law is! How could one depict the invisible? How picture the  inconceivable? How could one express to the limitless, the immeasurable,  the invisible? How give infinity a shape? How paint immortality? How  put mystery in one place?
>  But when you think of God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for  your sake, then you can clothe him in a human form. When the invisible  becomes visible to the eye, you may then draw his form. When he who is a  pure spirit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of his own nature,  existing as God, takes on the form of a servant and a body of flesh,  then you may draw his likeness, and show it to anyone who is willing to  contemplate it. Depict his coming down, his virgin birth, his baptism in  the Jordan, his transfiguration on Mt Tabor, his all-powerful  sufferings, his death and miracles, the proofs of his deity, the deeds  he performed in the flesh through divine power, his saving Cross, his  grave, his resurrection and his ascent into heaven. Give to it all the  endurance of engraving and color. Have no fear or anxiety; not all  veneration is the same. Abraham venerated the sons of Emmor, impious men  who were ignorant of God, when he bought the double cave for a tomb.  [Gen. 23.7] Jacob venerated his brother Esau and the Egyptian Pharaoh.  [Gen 33.3] He venerated, but he did not worship in the full sense.  Joshua and Daniel venerated an angel of God [Jos. 5.14, Dan. 8:16-17]  they did not worship in the full sense.
>  Worship is one thing, veneration another. The invisible things of God  have been made visible through images since the creation of the world.  We see images in creation which remind us faintly of God, e.g. in order  to talk about the holy and worshipful Trinity, we use the images of the  sun and rays of light, a spring and a full river, the mind and speech  and the spirit within us, or a rose tree, a sprouting flower, and a  sweet fragrance. Also events in the future can be foreshadowed  mystically by images. For instance, the ark represents the image of Our  Lady, the Mother of God. So does the staff and the earthen jar. The  bronze serpent shows us the one who defeated the bite of the original  serpent on the Cross; [Jn 3:14-15] the sea, water and the cloud depict  the grace of baptism. [I Cor. 10.1] ...
>  You must understand that there are different degrees of worship.  First of all the full worship which we show to God, who alone is by  nature worthy of worship. But, for the sake of God who is worshipful by  nature, we honor and venerate his saints and servants. It is in this  sense that Joshua and Daniel worshipped an angel, [Jos. 5.14, Dan.  8:16-17] and David worshipped the Lord’s holy places, when be said, “Let  us go to the place where his feet have stood.” [Ps. 132.7] Similarly,  his dwelling place is worshipped, as when all the people of Israel  adored in the tabernacle, and they stood round the temple in Jerusalem  gazing at it from all sides worshipping, as they still do. Similarly, we  honor the rulers established by God, as when Jacob gave homage to Esau,  his elder brother, [Gen. 33.3] and to Pharaoh, the divinely established  ruler. [Gen. 47.7] And Joseph was worshipped by his brothers. [Gen.  50.18] That kind of veneration is based on honour, as in the case of  Abraham and the sons of Emmor. [Gen. 23.7] So then, either do away with  all worship, or accept it in all its different kinds. Answer me this  question: “Is there only one God?"
>  "Yes,” you answer, “there is only one Law-giver."
>  So why would his commands contradict each other? The cherubim, for  example, are mere creatures. Why, then, does he allow cherubim, carved  by human hand, to overshadow the mercy—seat in the temple? Obviously it  is impossible to make an image of God because is infinite and  changeless, or of someone like God because creation should not be  worshipped as God. But he allowed the people to make an image of the  cherubim who are finite and who lie in adoration before his throne,  overshadowing the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the  heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say  that the ark of the covenant and staff and mercy-seat were not made by  human hands? Do they not consist of what you call contemptible matter?  What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Did it not depict a  reality beyond itself? This is why the holy Apostle says that the  rituals of the law, “serve as an example and shadow of heavenly things.”  [Heb. 8.5] Moses, when he came to finish the tabernacle, was told “make  sure that you make everything according to the pattern that you were  shown on the Mountain.” [Ex. 25.40] The law was not an image itself, but  it shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, “the law  contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those  things.” [Heb. 10.1]
>  So, since the law is a forerunner of images, how can we say that it  forbids images? Should the law ban us from making images, when the  tabernacle itself was a depiction, a foreshadowing? No. There is a time  for everything. [Eccl. 3.1] In the old days, the incorporeal and  infinite God was never depicted. Now, however, when God has been seen  clothed in flesh, and talking with mortals, [Baruch 3.37] I make an  image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God  of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter,  who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from  honoring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not  as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God’s body  is God by its union with him, it is changeless. The nature of God  remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is brought to life  by a logical and reasoning soul.
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just found this toady and thought I'd put it here for people reading this by St John of Damascus.  
> https://www.christianhistoryinstitut...n-of-damascus/


All he does is talk about the "images" that God commanded to be depicted in the temple.   Where does God command images today?  Or the images that the Eastern Orthodox Church uses?

----------


## Natural Citizen

Hey, what does the chalice, itself, symbolize to the Roman Church? Anything?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> All he does is talk about the "images" that God commanded to be depicted in the temple.   Where does God command images today?  Or the images that the Eastern Orthodox Church uses?


Where does god command English be used in any liturgy? Or the printing of the gospels(didn't happen until Gutenberg invented his press c. 1455)? Or pews used in liturgy? Or the other customs and innovations unique to the West?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hey, what does the chalice, itself, symbolize to the Roman Church? Anything?


I don't think so. But since the RCC was Orthodox until it schismated and shares a common eucharistic history with the EOC, I'll leave this here FWIW:

In Orthodox Christian usage the *Chalice* is a form of a stemmed cup or goblet used to offer Communion during the Divine Liturgy.  The chalice is usually made of a precious metal, gold or silver, and  maybe plain, engraved, bejeweled, or decorated with a combination of  adornment. During the entry to the eucharistic service the wine is  brought in the chalice and a plate called the *Paten or Diskos* is used to carry the prosphora, which is a leavened bread or artos. These combined are the Holy Gifts.  

Chalice with Diskos


 Before the Divine Liturgy begins, a service called the proskomedia is conducted at a table of preparation or prothesis at the side of the altar, during which the Holy Gifts are prepared for Communion. As prayers are recited the chalice is filled with wine and from the prosphora a *Lamb*  is cut and placed on the paten. The prayers include commemorations from  the faithful for loved ones, both living and dead. During the Great Entrance these Gifts are brought to the altar table where by joining the Lamb with the wine the celebrant calls for the bread and wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ for Communion. 
 

Chalice of the Ipatevsky Monastery, Kostroma, 1911.



 Communion begins among the higher clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons, before the Lamb is mixed with the wine for communion of the laity. Communion of the laity  is usually by spoon directly from the chalice to the communicant.  Except for a portion of the communion that may be held in reserve for  communion of the sick before the next Divine Liturgy, the remaining  portion of the Body and Blood of Christ is consumed by the clergy at the  conclusion the service 

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Chalice

----------

