ECF's -Which ones were right?

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

It has been pointed out many times that one person's 'plain reading' is another's heresy; if 'plain reading' were so clear you would not have to have recourse to a Catholic commentary to back up your view of the incident of the Golden Calf; you would also accept the 'plain reading' that the bread and wine are the body and blood of the Lord. You don't, we do; you claim 'plain reading', and so do we; at the very least 'plain reading' is not all it is cracked up to be.

You are quick to take offence, and yet my plain reading of this is that you are implying I do not read it in an honest light. If you do not mean this, what do you mean? If you do mean this, how can you presume to know whether I read it in an honest light? This is another reason why I voice the suspicion that you seem to think you have some insight into the motives of others.

Peace,

Anglian

View it w/o presupposition...
I am suggesting viewing something with a presupposition certainly CAN defy honesty, though I am not suggesting you aren't honest just suggesting you look at it from outside the way you THINK you should be looking at it. Nothing more than that.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Dear Simon,

if you agree that we are not worshipping icons, exactly what point are you trying to make - except that you don't like it?

The first commandment is not being broken if we are not worshipping icons; so what, apart from your own personal dislike of what we do, are you objecting to?

Peace,

Anglian

quick question: Is there ever a worship undertaken by the EO that does NOT include icons?

 

[Uphill Battle]

2nd question: Why is it that the EO eschew statues, unlike the RC, if there is nothing wrong with the practice of using an image as a conduit/aid/part (use whatever term you wish) to worship/prayer?

 

[Anglian]

View it w/o presupposition...
I am suggesting viewing something with a presupposition certainly CAN defy honesty, though I am not suggesting you aren't honest just suggesting you look at it from outside the way you THINK you should be looking at it. Nothing more than that.

Dear Simon,

Thanks for the clarification. We all bring our presuppositions, but I hope we all also try to stand outside them from time to time.

In that, the ECFs can be quite useful - precisely because they do not always agree on everything.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

quick question: Is there ever a worship undertaken by the EO that does NOT include icons?

we typically worship where there are icons - both verbal and visual (for example, many of our written prayers and most of the Liturgy are scriptural quotes).

in the home, there is a prayer corner where there are icons and the Bible is kept. We gather as family or alone to pray here, but also pray anywhere.

we can also pray without the verbal and visual icons

though I'm not certain I got your question aright.

 

[Anglian]

quick question: Is there ever a worship undertaken by the EO that does NOT include icons?

2nd question: Why is it that the EO eschew statues, unlike the RC, if there is nothing wrong with the practice of using an image as a conduit/aid/part (use whatever term you wish) to worship/prayer?

Dear Uphill Battle,

Not being Eastern Orthodox, I had better not presume to respond for them without making that caveat. But knowing that Thekla and others will correct me if I err, I would answer the first by saying that icons are a permanent presence in our Churches, so nothing we do does not have icons present.

On the second point, you will have to ask the Eastern Orthodox, as some of our Churches have been known to have a statue or two!

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MrPolo]

Can you show how we are to assume that this is in the hands as Rome claims...of Rome alone, even to this day?

Well, we've already been down that road (and FYI, the Magisterium is all the bishops in union with Rome, not just the Roman bishop)...but what I see you coming to in this thread is the realization that there has to be an authoritative body, because otherwise, any variation, among today's chaotic teachers, or any difference among ECFs could never be settled. It would become, me-and-my-Bible, 6 billion different "true faiths."

 

[Thekla]

2nd question: Why is it that the EO eschew statues, unlike the RC, if there is nothing wrong with the practice of using an image as a conduit/aid/part (use whatever term you wish) to worship/prayer?

The icon portrays a "visual teaching" ,the Bible, a verbal, and both teach the same thing. For example, as the Psalms are "prayed" daily, you notice that the daily "Doxology" (a hymn/prayer) quotes liberally from the various Psalms, and the quotes become "icon" for the complete Psalm/teaching they refer to.

The icon is to portray a "spiritual" truth (like the use of colors I described). They are not to present the "fallen world"; to EO understanding, sculptures portray (or are too easily read as portraying) the physical world. In the icon, for example, there is no internal "vanishing point" or "physical perspective"* -- because of this lack of reality, and the nature of visual intake, the entire teaching is presented "simultaneously" rather than "chronologically" (reading is chronological in that you build from sentences read in order).

* the actual vanishing point in iconography is in the viewer; this is a parallel to the way we view the Bible - it is to "spiritually search the reader" as well as instruct.

 

[simonthezealot]

wasn't he rebuked by a prophet ?
and his hand was withered when he attempted to arrest the prophet ...

I like the way Macarthur deals with this whole issue...

When Jeroboam took the ten tribes and established the kingdom in the north, he was afraid that the people in the north would not maintain an allegiance to him. If they were always going to the south to the Temple to worship, they would keep their roots in the south. So he decided to build a couple of places in the north for worship.

First Kings 12:29 says, "And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan."
The problem with that was that God didn't want worship to take place in Bethel and Dan, but in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Verse 30 says, "And this thing became a sin; for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi" (vv. 30-31).
Jeroboam picked out a few poor people and made them priests. But he couldn't do that. The priests were to come only out of the tribe of Levi. Worship was to take place in Jerusalem and was not to be ad-libbed. You can't say, "We have a great idea. We'll do our own thing up here." If it isn't scriptural, then don't do it. Verse 32 says,
"...So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves...."
Jeroboam had his priests go through all the Jewish ceremonies, only in Bethel and Dan. They had no business doing them there.

Then god sent a prophet God said, "I have to send somebody up there to straighten out this situation." First Kings 13:1 says, "And, behold, there came a man of God...."
This man of God was a prophet and a preacher. He traveled all the way from Judah to the north because there apparently was not a prophet in the north whom God could use. Verse 1 continues,
"...out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel...."
He happened to arrive when Jeroboam was worshiping God at the altar and burning his sacrifice. This was a bold young man. Verse 2 says,
"And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places who burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burned upon thee."

In other words, "Altar, you have had it. There is coming a man named Josiah, and he is going to burn bones on you." The ultimate desecration for a Jew was to touch a dead body. To burn the bones of a dead person on an altar was to desecrate and pollute that altar for good. So this man of God said to Jeroboam, "Your altars have had it. Three hundred years from now, a man is coming by the name of Josiah who will dig up dead bones and burn them all over your altar (2 Kings 23).
Just to make sure that Jeroboam didn't think that the prophet was joking, verse 3 says,
"And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the LORD hath spoken: Behold, the altar shall be torn down, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out. And it came to pass, when King Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, who had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him. And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him. The altar also was torn down, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD" (vv. 3-5).
God says, "You don't invent your own worship, you obey My prescription."
Verse 6 says, "And the king answered and said unto the man of God, Entreat now the face of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me again. And the man of God besought the LORD, and the king's hand was restored to him again, and became as it was before. And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself, and I will give thee a reward. And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place; for so was it charged me by the word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest" (vv. 6-9). He says, "I have one commitment in my life--obey the word of God." Verse 10 says, "So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Bethel." This guy was right on. Now it would have been an honor to be invited to eat with the king. This prophet could have been considered a hero. He could have figured, "The king has heard and seems to have repented. If I go with him, I'll compromise a little on God's word and witness to the king." But he says, "I'm not interested in witnessing to you. I'm not interested in doing anything with you. God told me not to mess around with you, just to get out of here a different way than I came."

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

if you agree that we are not worshipping icons, exactly what point are you trying to make - except that you don't like it?

The first commandment is not being broken if we are not worshipping icons; so what, apart from your own personal dislike of what we do, are you objecting to?

Peace,

Anglian

They created the Calf as an image of the LIVING God because they had NOTHING visible to view as HIS truth in the absence of Moses...They created an image to look upon (an icon ) if you will...Get it?
Even being created as eloyhim it TICKED God off...
He was at that very moment giving instruction to Moses about this very thing...
Remember the part about graven images neither in HEAVEN or on earth?

 

[Thekla]

my Bible says "idols"
it says "gods"

Despite this relatively bloodless split, problems still arose quickly. Jeroboam, Israel's first post-split King, got off to a worse start than Israel's first ever King, Saul. While Saul got in trouble for impatiently offering sacrifices that only a priest could do [1 Samuel 13:8-9], Jeroboam callously led the people into outright idolatry. Where Saul hadn't trusted in the Lord for help before a battle, Jeroboam topped that unfaithfulness.

from: http://www.visi.com/~nathan/xtian/samaritans.html

 

[Thekla]

and from the same site:

Ahijah, a prophet, had this message from God to Jeroboam: "I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes. You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols made of metal; you have provoked me to anger and thrust me behind your back. " 'Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel--slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone." [1 Kings 14:8-10]

 

[Yarddog]

As I pointed out earlier to Anglian...Show me ONCE where I said you guys worship these things...I haven't!
I have NOT even said Aarons group was worshipping I said they created this as a visible image for our God...
Quit painting your preconcieved notion of my point of view please...Thanks!
I don't answer FALSE acusations

Hello Simon,

You are the one that is saying that the golden calf is a mirror of holy icons. You were the one that supposedly provided scripture, from the USCCB from Exodus 32 that says:
1 When the people became aware of Moses' delay in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him, "Come, make us a god who will be our leader; as for the man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him."
2 Aaron replied, "Have your wives and sons and daughters take off the golden earrings they are wearing, and bring them to me."
3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron,
4 who accepted their offering, and fashioning this gold with a graving tool, made a molten calf. Then they cried out, "This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt."

Yes, though one may say they were worshipping the unseen God, in their minds that calf was that god, not the God that Moses was with on the mountain.

BTW, the translation that you provide on post 112 is not from the NAB, and if you follow the link that you provided, you will not see the translation you used. Below is what the NAB says.
8 They have soon turned aside from the way I pointed out to them, making for themselves a molten calf and worshiping it, sacrificing to it and crying out, 'This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!'

So, if you don't want anyone to say that you are insinuating that we worship icons, stop using references that indicate that.

If you want to try and show that icons should not be used, find scripture that indicates that and don't mis-use it.

Yarddog

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't think he misused it at all.
The confusion over God's identity is compounded by the use of images.
Those Egyptians knew full well that that calf was made from their gold jewelry.
It is a lingering artifact of this confusion that men could not & some still cannot accept the metaphor of the eucharist as a metaphor.
And I will say it flat-out. You worship icons. No insinuating. Worship and veneration are the same thing with a fantasy of significant degree in difference. You can hate on me all you want for saying it, but I don't hate you for doing it.

 

[Philothei]

You worship icons

Do you realize what you are saying? How insulting this is?

 

[Rick Otto]

You have no idea how insulting you have been & are, so your sanctimony is easily dismissed.

 

[Thekla]

why would anyone hate you ?

you do not choose to respect what we say to you, but assume either we don't know what we do, or lie, or worse - and that is frustrating to have another assume such a thing. But this is the internet. There is no sense of community, of love and respect as there would be face to face.

It seems to me that we live in a culture that does not encourage respect (or its synonyms) -- in this sense, all manifestations of respect, as they are culturally absent, make simple exhibts of respect/veneration look like worship.

I don't mean this personally, its just the cultural water we swim in. It effects our perceptions. We leap to concluions intuitively, but a cultural intuition, not the one God given to us as image of God in us at our creation.

 

[Rick Otto]

Ok, Thekla, I'll just go away for awhile.
People hate because their security is challenged & they are ignorant as to how or why.
I am angry because I have run out of patience for the mask of politeness & innocence that has worn thin over the disrespect & hatred that is being doled out with condescension & sanctimony under cover of false piety & respect.
Here's a perfect example:

Thank you for illustrating exactly why it is so difficult to be sure what it is you are saying - except that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

A thank you followed by a slap in the face.
This is an example of making a point of starting & ending a post on a note of politeness while sandwiching immature provocation between.
I'm just disgusted with it, but it is being allowed while my calling it what it is, is attracting negative attention, so I'll just have to get some distance from it until my nausea subsides.
See ya later, sis.

 

[Montalban]

me too. What I said was tongue firmly in cheek. None of them are around to join the disscussion anywho.

The staff of Aaron, some Manna, and the tablets.

and no, I don't see any instances of the Isrealites taking them out and praying to/through them.

Didn't they place them in their "Holy of Holies"? They were looked after only by select priests too

 

[Montalban]

That wasn't the false assertion I addressed. I addressed your false assertion that

All I needed for you to do is answer my question to show why it wasn't a false assertion. Instead you prefer to wail about how people hate you, etc. Let me know when you want to actually debate what's been discussed.

You constantly try to corner me & bust me on stuff I neither say nor imply & then you come out with this ridiculous nonsernse which you can't defend, only squirm & run away from. We could be great friends in spite of our differences, but you won't have it. You need to disparage & despise others & it must be because that is how you feel about yourself & your own beliefs. Which is completely understandable considering the caliber of thought behind the statement of yours I just quoted.

This is a typical lack of insight. Whilst you're more than happy to attack me personally you accuse me of the very thing you're doing yourself.

It was a rhetorical question, which means it wasn't asked to be answered, it was asked to make a point, which was that you have an attitude problem that makes you ask rude questions & provoke negative feelings.

I understand your point. It's based on your own false assumption that something must be demonstrated from the Bible only for you to believe in it.

Again, I'm sorry you don't want to address that.

Apparently you are unable to ask an honest one that isn't meant to provoke strife.

Apparently you're more than happy to make just-so statements such as at the lead of this post but are totally unwilling to examine where you're wrong.

Quite simply if Jesus did not appear as the full unknowable God then he appeared in an 'image' of God because he didn't appear in his fullness.

I'm sorry that the implications are so shattering that you don't even want to explore it.

You'd prefer trite insults such as we worship images, etc. Then you're more then happy to wail about being victim.