That was a schism, and the year was 1054, if you want to establish a tiny foothold on credibility, you have to know your stuff. You don't. Certain dogmas were incompatible with the views of the either Holy sees of Apostolic Church. None of it changed the Christian message, Scriptures, the past history of the Church, nor added to it.
On one hand you said nothing changed, and in the exact same breadth you affirm that "certain dogmas were incompatible..." talk about contradiction!
So much for your theory that historically orthodox christianity has always remained the same and never changed!
Apostolic Church always had the correct doctrine and preserved it. RCC and EO are the continuation of this historical Church, therefore both churches are Apostolic, meaning that they can trace their roots to the disciples of Christ.
So should Mary the "Mother of God" or "Mother of Christ"? How can both views represent one continuous apostolic church?
That is exactly what the Christian point of view is. Christians do not worship created beings. I know it is not rocket science but since some people struggle to grasp this simple fact, we are still running in the same circle.
The reason we are still running in circles is because everytime you try to justify prostrating and praying to lifeless images you fail miserably. You claim to follow the Bible, everytime I quote you a passage condemning bowing to idols and making images you start blabbering about your own personal ideas and rhetoric. Stick to the texts and answer the questions, trust me you will benefit more instead of just writing nonsense.
Now how can you even tell, how those people are praying, what is going on in their minds and hearts?
I have two eyes, alhamdulillaah, and I can clearly see christians bowing and kneeling before idols. The bible doesn't say it's okay to do that as long as you have a pure heart or a clean conscience. That's like saying, we have no right to judge thieves for stealing cause we don't know what's in the hearts. This is why I keep telling you, you will only humiliate yourself by spouting your personal philosophy, stick to the texts.
There was no need to "decorate" the Temple, icons were made to represent the Holy. Focus of worship, for both Christians and Jews is God.
The icons represent the Holy? Which icon represents God? Not a single one? The cherubim represented angels. And they were never worshipped, bowed down to, or prayed to. Until you prove to us all that these cherubim were venerated in the same way you "venerate" icons of mary and saints, your argument will continue to be discarded in the trash bin again and again.
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 Hebrewsand 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.
Now you just shot yourself in the foot, because you just prove that a marble statue of Virgin Mary is not a mere image, its an idol, just like an image of Baal is an idol, an image of Ram/Krishna is an idol, an image of buddha is an idol, an image of Zeus is an idol, and image of Horus is an idol, etc.
What do all these idols have in common? Their devotees bow and worship them and pray to them. I sincerely pray that Allaah gives all idol-worshippers the wisdom to realize the foolishness of their actions, that God alone is worthy of worship and idols cannot hear, let alone answer prayers.
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.
The problem is that cherubim and icons of virgin Mary are not the same. Don't put them in the same category.
Furthermore, if this applies to all imagesthen even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol. So either everyone with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
Exactly! Do you "venerate" a picture of your driver's license? Do you build a shrine over it and have people flock from far and wide as pilgrims to see and bow before your driver's license? Of course a driver's license is an image, but it is not an idol. You demonstrate this much understanding that not all images are idols, yet you cannot understand such a simple thing as what makes the difference between an idol (like statue of virgin mary) and a simple picture (like your driver's license).
There is nothing that I don't get, Virgin Mary is not God, nor she is worshiped.
Keep repeating that to yourself if it makes you feel better. Most people will agree with me that prayers like this are only addressed to God:
"
Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"
These kinds of prayers to a "holy queen mother" are quite similar to the ancient Egyptian "veneration" of Isis and the Hindu "veneration" of Kali-Ma
I already quoted OT verses where there are icons.
No you didn't, you completely failed to prove how decorative pieces of angels are anything akin to idols of virgin Mary which christians bow down to and worship, and make pilgrimages to shrines containing her image.
The venerable eighth century theologian, Saint John of Damascus-a champion for the cause of icons and for Orthodox Christianity-summarizes very well what true Christians in his day believed about God. See if you don't agree. "I believe in one God, the source of all things, without beginning, uncreated, immortal and unassailable, eternal, everlasting, incomprehensible, bodiless, invisible, uncircumscribed, without form.
Words are meaningless if you fail to live up to them. You believe in a God who is without beginning (Jesus had a beginning), uncreated (Jesus was created), immortal (Jesus is mortal - even died according to you), unassailable (Jesus was assailable to thousands of his followers), eternal (eternal means without beginning or end...definitely can't apply to Jesus), everlasting (same as eternal), incomprehensible, bodiless (Jesus had a body - those who deny his body (Docetists) are considered heretics by you), invisible (Jesus was visible), uncircumscribed, without form (Jesus had a form).
But given our understanding of the Godhead, if God is invisible, as Saint John writes, how can we possibly depict God? Listen once again to Saint John of Damascus: "It is obvious that when you contemplate God becoming man, then you may depict Him clothed in human form. When the invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw His likeness.
Precisely how the doctrine of incarnation leads to idolatry. the devil tries day and night to make believers in One God compromise His oneness and subtly become idol worshippers. What more clever way to achieve this than make them believe that the One God incarnated Himself as a human being, and therefore you can make images of that human being and worship them. Incarnation goes hand in hand with idolatry. Hindus believe Ram is the incarnation of Vishnu, come down from heaven to live on earth, thus they see worshipping images of Ram as worshipping God Himself.
For a while??? It was built by them.
No it wasn't built by them.
Further, the ridiculous theory that Abraham traveled to Mecca can not be supported by any documents or historical findings.
But the incredible theory that Elijah went to heaven on a chariot of fire is supported by loads of documents, historical findings, archaelogical evidence, and witness testimonies!
It is Islam's clear attempt to establish credibility through Abraham.
The Bible itself says Ishmael will become the father of a great, blessed nation.
Nor did Jews pick up pagan rituals like early muslims did.
Sacrificing animals is a ritual particular to both pagans and Jews, the difference is Jews are suppose to sacrifice animals at the temple dedicated to God and for the sake of God only, whereas pagans sacrifice animals dedicated to various idols and at various temples dedicated to these idols. No one suggests that Judaism is pagan due to the ritual of animal sacrifice, but you constantly humiliate yourself trying to prove Islaam is based on pagan rituals.
You have no data go forth in terms of what they did. It is logical assume that they venerated it due to the sacredness of the object.
No it is not logical at all! That is your own personal philosophical interpretation, because you are trying to save yourself from further humiliation. The bronze snake was never venerated and you know it, no amount of "logical assumptions" can change that. Your faith may be based on assumptions, mine isn't. When God says don't worship idols, I take that seriously, unlike you.
Since Christians do not worship icons, your point is moot.
You are ignorant of what constitutes worship.
But you can know the facts by just reading it superficially? That is great because it shows that you don't know our Scriptures. If you look at the passage in question (2nd Kings 18:4), you will see that the Bronze Serpent was not destroyed simply because people venerated it, but because they had made it into a serpent God, called "Nehushtan."
And what kind of rituals would they practice dedicated to their serpent god? The bronze snake was originally meant to be simply looked at. Looking at something is not worship. (But since you have absolutely no clear cut criteria for what constitutes worship you will continue to be confused).
Look what the bible says:
He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (2 Kings 18:4, NIV)
Here God clearly condemns them for burning incense to the bronze snake (they were originally only suppose to look at it to get cured of snake bites...they deviated so far from its original purpose God had it destroyed).
Now I want you to answer this question honestly: Does you church teach it is okay to burn incense to icons of virgin Mary?
Virgin Mary is not made or elevated in to a god, people pray to God, along with Virgin Mary herself.
Do you mean that Virgin Mary prays to God as well, or people pray to
both God and Mary?