It's a simple matter of respect/being polite. When you are a guest in someone else's house, you do not go out of your way to antagonise your hosts.
Certainly understood.
Upvote
0
It's a simple matter of respect/being polite. When you are a guest in someone else's house, you do not go out of your way to antagonise your hosts.
Wahabi Protestants? Either I'm missing something here, or you're being unnecessarily hostile toward their beliefs.
Reuters) - A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun."
Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom's strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.
Daniel 2:46-47King James Version (KJV)
46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.
47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.
Im being hostile to Calvin and his wahabist belief as presented in the OP's. Listen to what Calvin said and see how he agrees with this fatwa issued a few days ago by a prominant islamic scholar:
Calvin could not comprehend the grassroots origins of illustrations and how they enhanced the Church's outreach. Icons exist because they play a role in the promotion of the gospel and enhance piety.
John Calvin not only had a high regard for the arts in his thinking, but he also encouraged his people to understand and appreciate the arts of humankind. They were, as a later Calvinist was to assert, one of the richest gifts of God to mankind. But for Calvin, the Church was not the sphere of the arts, and the arts were not to be the handmaids of the Church.
Much of his criticism of the images in the Church was valid for his culture and age. Like Savonarola before him, Calvin condemned the artistic fashion of having saints painted in shameless luxury or obscenity and complained that the inmates of brothels were more chastely and modestly dressed than images intended to represent virgins. But he did not make a blanket condemnation of the plastic arts but wanted them to be used lawfully. As he wrote: But, as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist on is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully, that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for His glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction.2 He wanted the arts in what he saw as their proper sphere. They were for our instruction and admonition, not to be used as vehicles of worship or preaching. The arts could enlarge our understanding of created reality, extend our experience and not least of all, bring delight to our hearts.
When we allow Calvin to speak for himself, it is difficult to see how he has earned the reputation of the archenemy of art, joy and beauty. In spite of his critics, he did not have coldness stamped upon his brow, and in all his many writings shows no pathological hatred of art or aesthetic delight. Even his actions deny the myth. In 1546 a passion play was presented in Geneva with no objections from Calvin or his followers. The company presenting the play then asked permission to put on a miracle play that dramatized the Acts of the Apostles. The Geneva Council asked Calvin
whether this play should be allowed, and after reading the script and discussing it with other ministers he said it was sound and godly and that he would not oppose its production. When the play was first publicly presented, a fierce attack on it was made by Michal Cop, which led to a riot. Calvin calmed the people and players but was angry with Cop, declaring that the poor man was in need of sounder sense and reason. With Calvins support, the play continued for another week.
1. Did Calvin believe that a pictorial image of Christ is nestorian? Did he believe it promotes eutychianism?
2. What was his understanding of the incarnation and how does he view the Eucharist? Is it literal or figurative? Is the Eucharist a graven image, an idol, the Lord's actual body?
3.Did he believe that the uncircumscribeable Logos assumed humanity and clothed himself with flesh, thus becoming circumscribeable? Or does he believe as the Docetists that he was only an 'illusion'?
4.When Christ assumed matter did Calvin think that material hypostasis who walked on earth cannot be recorded with paint and color from an artist? If so why even assume an image and likeness of a servant? Christ said that He was the visible image of the invisible God.
5.Does Calvin believe that the image depicts the prototype of whom is depicted or just shapes and figures symbolically labeled as such as did the heathen? If so how is it that Christ recognized the image of Caesar on the coin, and why were these coins not rejected?
If the image depicts the prototype then it can be venerated just like the living person was venerated, when Abraham did obesiance to the three men that appeared to him at the oak of mamre.
I guess Calvin didnt even know the scriptures too well, let alone have the mind of the Fathers.
How does the existence of an icon somehow indicate that Luke was the first iconographer? I don't doubt your word that there's an icon at a monastery in Cyprus that is claimed by some to be by the hand of Luke. I have no idea how simply going and looking at the icon will demonstrate that it's a genuinely Lukan icon. I don't think the claim can be substantiated.
So, would you agree that from the position of anyone who is not Eastern Orthodox, none of the three claims I initially addressed can be concluded to be accurate to a reasonable level of certainty? That was my original point. It calls into question why one would use those claims as evidence for an Eastern Orthodox position if the appreciation of their truth value is completely dependent on one already being in agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy.
Herod introduces sports trophies with figurative art. The Jews get mad because of figurative art is against their laws. Herod takes the images off the trophies. The Jews are happy with the trophies.
Perhaps that's so. I can't much make a distinction between the character of the rhetoric from either side. However, I likely wouldn't pick up on things that would be particularly offensive to the Eastern Orthodox. I'm not familiar with any past behavior. I apologize for jumping the gun on what I thought was unnecessary hostility.
that's why you should go there. would it not make sense that the monks there would have a greater personal knowledge of the history of the icon, and a better knowledge then what you can find on the Net or in a book?
well, not if you merely look at Church history through the eyes of the post enlightenment way of thinking. if you read the councils and their canons and minutes, you can see that their standard was always what had always been believed. icons are no different. the fact that the word Trinity is not used until Tertullian does not negate the fact that the Trinity is a belief from Pentecost.
yes, imagery is not the issue, it's what kind of imagery, and WHY. the Jews used images from when they were in the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
Without reliably dated materials, either in terms of records or in terms of dating the actual materials of the icon, it's really just taking the your and some monastics' word for it. I'll drop it because I'm not going to go to Cyprus.
Again, this is equivalent to saying people who agree with Eastern Orthodoxy generally will often agree with specific claims made my Eastern Orthodoxy.
You must realize that approaching historical sources assuming the character of what they're going to say beforehand could lead to a biased understanding of those sources.
I'd assume from here that this an insurmountable obstacle between two different historical methodologies.
The above being a response to the quotes from Josephus, it almost sounds like you're saying that second temple Judaism in Judaea interpreted the prohibition against images as forbidding everything but venerated religious images (an unrecorded practice). I'm curious if you have actual sources for post-Babylonian practices of image veneration. What kind of images are you suggesting they used in ritual contexts, and what did they do with them?
buz said:Can you first tell us how you justify being on this computer? According to you the OT forbids it. Do you have an Aristotlean argument for it?
Ignatius21 said:JM,
What do you think will come out of a discussion of specific bibilcal passages? Before we go there, do we not first need to discuss and somehow agree (or agree to disagree) about how these things are to be interpreted and understood?
Maybe you missed my post above. Issues of hermeneutics and authority certainly aren't a "rabbit trail." It's the meat of this issue and many others.
Shieldmaiden4Christ said:That's insulting, btw.
buz said:...wahabi protestants
buzuxi02 said:I'm glad Im Orthodox
buz said:that makes a distinction between idols and holy icons,a difference between what is an appropriate image and an inappropriate image, a difference between paying respect/reverencing and to absolute worship of God, a difference between ornamental images and sacred images.
buz said:something impossible to do with sola scripture unless your a hipocrite.
prodromos said:It appears to be his MO. Its why he keeps referring to Orthodoxy as a denomination.
Shieldmaiden4Christ said:Essentially, Eastern Orthodoxy happened (with Christ and the Apostles) before denominations became a "thing".
ArmyMatt said:well, if we are a denomination, we are the only one that is around because others left us at some point. so we are the only "denomination" that does not exist by breaking and starting something new, but rather by preserving what was given.
buz said:Wahabis dont believe in having pictures in textbooks or magazine, just like hippocrite Calvin
buz said:Not only are protestants hipocrites, but they are heretics as well.
buz said:They take away the experiences of generations of christians claiming that many times in history, christianity dies out until its revived by a sola scripturalists. They even despise those of the catacombs who have left images on the tombs.
ommnone said:That's hardly the point. JM was being attacked for writing as he believes rather than conforming his presentation to Eastern Orthodox expectations. It would seem both detrimental and undiplomatic to criticize someone for not agreeing with you in a place allegedly in existence for debate of such topics. This is not the topic of the thread anyway; apologies for taking this off topic.
Shieldmaiden4Christ said:History is on our side, not on his.
Shield said:OO, EO & RCC are technically "pre-denominational" Churches.
The problem with what he believes is that it makes no sense with what we believe or even with reality.
buz said:Because of the invention of the gutenberg press they cut out the middleman ( the holy Spirit within the one church) and became trapped in their personal perception of 1st century christianity.
buz said:Calvins view on images fell apart as soon as his fellow people embraced the camera and even before that the renaissance.
buz said:You cannot support your thesis from a few verses in scripture without backing your claims using the hymns, prayers, decrees, spiritual writings of those that all already agree with as a starting point. PROVE TO ME YOU ARE CORRECT BY USING THOSE FATHERS, PRAYERS, HYMNS, DEFINITIONS, CUSTOMS ALREADY ACCEPTED!
Shieldmaiden said:Because the majority of Christians in this world (Catholics, EO & OO) consider themselves to be pre-denominational. It's as simple as that. The concept of denominations is also incredibly recent; these three Churches existed BEFORE denominations were a thing. Furthermore, as to your point about EO Churches, the different Churches within the EO Church are not different denominations because they don't have different beliefs; they're different jurisdictions.
ArmyMatt said:that is not why JM was being attacked. he talked down to a lot of us and showed a lot of ignorance concerning our faith.
ArmyMatt said:I think we would say the OO and RC were the first, since they broke away first sadly.
buzux said:Icons exist becasue they play a role in the promotion of the gospel and enhance piety.
Ignatius21 said:comparing Orthodox mystics to Buddhists (which our friend WP seems to have done earlier in this thread). "Hmm, let's see, they both repeat short phrases and control their breathing...so...Orthodox and buddhist monks are basically the same." Absurd, right?
Ignnatius21 said:My best recollection of studying this issue years ago, is that Calvin and many oof his followers were favorable to the flourishing of art and music outside the Church. Calvin's contention was that religious art, used in the context of Christian worship would lead to idolatry.
ArmyMatt said:the fact that you said that the Church and the state must be wed means you need to look at the minutes from the 1st 6 Ecumenical councils. but anywho
read Ex 25-26, 1 Kings 6-8, 2 Chron 3-5.
um, I actually said that we are a denomination, I just clarified how we could think it.....As ommnone wrote, "Yes, that's your church's position. But it's not anyone else's. People shouldn't be forced to phrase their wording in a way that doesn't actually conform to their own beliefs just because you all have strong a conviction on a particular subject. This especially true in a space explicitly defined as one of contest against your group's convictions."
I don't think anyone said you were a dumb Westerner.......I think folks might have said when they were in the Christian West, but I don't think anyone made it that personal....kind of like you folks dismisses me as "Western" and therefore wrong. Without question. Or the looking down your nose at me, "I remember when I thought like a dumb Westerner like you..." etc. If the Eastern Orthodox denomination believes the closer to God you are the more humble you'll be, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting any Eastern Orthodox that are close to God. If belonging to the right church, like belonging to a club, is all that it takes to be a Christian I want no part of it.
well for one, this is the EO position and you are on an EO forum. for two, the OO historically set up the renegade episcopate, and for three Roman Catholics have admitted that the EO have maintained the ancient thinking and the ancient worship focus.Ahhh, now who is being offensive? You are now disrespecting the Oriental and Roman denominations. lol
what about the angels that were on the walls and the curtains, which the people saw? and this only shows that God is not anti image, but anti graven image. you have to show that icons are graven images, and not just images.The angels ArmyMatt mentions are decorative angels, directly revealed by God, to be added to the top of the Ark of the Covenant. Keep in mind it was a direct command by God recorded in His written word.
You will also not find any example of the High Priest bowing down before the angels, kissing them, or praying to them or what they represented.
So what was the purpose of the angels? Were worshipers to gaze upon them in adoration, asking them for assistance or looking through them into heaven? Absolutely not. Paul tells us in Hebrews, "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat" (Hebrews 9) They simply pointed to the middle of the top of the table which was the mercyseat and it did not contain any image. The Psalmist tells us that our God "dwellest between the cherubims" (Ps. 80) in the empty space and in or through images. When Christ came He replaced the old covenant so that we may, "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4) This throne of grace does not contain images.
Hey folks,
I cannot respond to every comment but I'll try to answer to get to some of them now.
Strawman. Once we understand the differences between the covenants, the old covenant and the new, there is no issue. A robust theological understanding of the biblical covenants would be all you need to give an answer.
The issue at hand is the practice of looking into a painting of God or His saints and pretending to be "looking through a window to heaven." The concept is completely foreign to the Old and New Testament. The heart of the issue is looking at history and scripture, not layers of tradition accepted only by your church, to discover what the Apostle taught and believed.
JM said:At this point in the convo people tend to dig in. I believe both sides have had their say and with that I'll leave the final comment, thank you. Yours in the Lord, jm
I'm too catholic to be Roman and too orthodox to be Eastern.
Hey Ignatius (great name),
I'll try to answer your questions tonight, perhaps tomorrow. I post a lot from my phone which leads to errors so I'll try to sit down in the near future and give some time to your questions. Unlike most Prots I'm aware of my traditions and embrace them. I am, after all, a confessional Baptist. That in and of itself places me in the stream of catholic Christianity. I'm too catholic to be Roman and too orthodox to be Eastern.
Your irenic spirit is refreshing.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
that's the kind of unneeded dig at us that adds nothing to the discussion./quote]
You are neither catholic nor orthodox; the way you interpret Scripture from your heretical Calvinistic lens shows this.
Its no less presumptuous than calling oneself orthodox in opposition to all others. We define orthodoxy by what we believe do we not? You believe you are orthodox and catholic, so do I. That is the point of the discussion. Lets not pretend to have injured one another so easily and move on.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
ArmyMatt said:that's the kind of unneeded dig at us that adds nothing to the discussion.
Shieldmaiden4Christ said:You are neither catholic nor orthodox; the way you interpret Scripture from your heretical Calvinistic lens shows this.
Ignatius21 said:Shield maiden ... I appreciate your zeal but could you kindly back off the flaming attacks a bit? Screaming "heretic" at people over and over adds nothing to this discussion.