ECF's -Which ones were right?

[Anglian]

Dear Montalban,

I suspect that during the time when exchanges fly fast and furious, we all miss things posted by others, and perhaps the times comes when we need just to let some things go by?

The question you pose here is a very interesting one:

I really hope someone reading this will be able to look at this and tell me if Jesus 'appeared' as God in his fullness. For if he didn't, then he could be said to not only 'appear' as God, but as a 'representation' of God because he as God who is Man did not appear as God who is unknowable, in the fullness of that unknowness.

My understanding would be that since the Word becomes Incarnate, what we see in Christ is both God in His fullness, but with that fullness incarnate in human form. We see the outwardness, but through a glass darkly, as it were, so he who has seen the Father has seen the Son, but we do not look at the face of God in the way that, say Moses did. That is my poor understanding, and I should be glad of any correction.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Yarddog]

Yes, against false gods. You missed that. An icon as used by us is not a depiction of a false god.

The prohibition was against using images to depict false gods.

That's why imagery was not prohibited, in toto - as already exampled many times to you, such as on the Ark of the Covenant.

Selective reading doesn't help



Why were Jews allowed to use imagery?

Hello Montalban,
One thing that I might add too imagery is that God also wanted to ensure that images, such as statues of men, would not lure the Israelites into worshipping them. It is easy to read Exodus and see how easily the Israelites fell back into idolatry, even after experiencing all of the miracles of God.

Proper images or objects were not prohibited for use in worshipping God, as we have shown in the images and objects, such as the Urim and Thummim, in the Temple.

Yarddog

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well icons are integral part of worship. You see in Orthodoxy worship is experienced. All the senses are touched by it. We smell the incence, we see the icons, we feel, touch, taste etc.

interesting! I can get all the same experiences on a picnic lunch in the park. (It's just humour.) I myself don't care if people use icons. despite my fellow protestant objections, I don't see the paralell between bowing to a golden cow, and remembering a saint through an icon. (I do have reservations about praying to saints, but that's a entirely seperate issue, of course.) I just wonder, though, if the CONSTANT use of icons in worship doesn't in some way make it that you are unable to worship (corporately, that is) without them. As for the use of icons, as a rule, it's not that big a deal for me. I'm neither Catholic or EO... so it doesn't come up much, outside this virtual cooking pot.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that we quote him where he's useful to the service of Holy Tradition. We just acknowledge that he is less than perfect as a witness.

Just like I might quote Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" as a great quote for democracy, and yet I accept that he also wanted Britain to retain India as a colonial posession.

For you, this might be 'selective quoting'. For me, there is no problem with that selectivity as the quotes are meant to serve a purpose.

Another way of looking at it is...
"This is the early Christians' wisdom, not mine. I hope not to say anything original. If I do, ignore it."
Mathewes-Green, F (2001), "The Illuminated Heart: The Ancient Chrstian Path of Transformation", (Paraclete Press; Brewster MA), p2.

It is the very essence of 'tradition'.

ok.... but using that Rubric, I can quote Hitler, right? He said a few truisms in his day too... some that were fairly profund. he was a murdering lunatic, of course, but hey.... it should be fine!

never happens though. I wasn't thinking of EO specifically when it comes to Origen anywho. I was thinking more RC. They quote ECF's like scripture itself... and sometimes they quote their heretics too.

it's a muddled mess.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Uphill Battle,

I can see where you are coming from, but perhaps we ought to say something about how icons are used in our worship. Let me describe what happens in my Church as a way of illustration.

Our Sunday service begins at 10.00 with the Raising of Incense and lasts until 10.45. Icons play no part here. The Divine Liturgy begins at 10.45 and goes on until 12.15. During that there are two points where the priest and the deacons turn to the icon of the Blessed Theotokos and say part of the doxology; then they turn to the icon of St. John the Forerunner and say that part of the doxology which refers to him. That's it.

When we enter the Church we kiss the icon and perform a prostration towards the altar. That's the only other place icons are involved.

But, of course, they are an integral part of our worship, because they are the 'clouds of witnesses' by whom we are surrounded, so they remind us of those Christian souls who have gone before us. I don't think this amounts to an excessive concentration on icons.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Jeroboam does this:

1 Kings 12:28

and through a prophet, God says this to Jeroboam:

1 Kings 14:9


note a pattern ? other gods -- molten images/eidolon

if the prohibition were against images in general, why would God command their use in the Temple ?

I'll repeat myself gods, -The Hebrew word rendered "gods" is simply the name of God in its plural form,. The image made was single, and therefore it would be imputing to the 10 tribes a greater sin than they were guilty of using an obvious false IMAGE of God (the calf) to worship.

 

[simonthezealot]

But, of course, they are an integral part of our worship, because they are the 'clouds of witnesses' by whom we are surrounded,

That's how the orthodox interpret the cloud of witness?
I thought that was just a bad RC apologetic tactic.

 

[simonthezealot]

this is why the Church founded by Christ relies on Holy Tradition and not an infallible man - neither a Pope, nor one individual who is convinced that his reading is correct; all are fallible, not one is righteous.

If you are suggesting that no one can know, then God has given us a worthless book.

Paul writes, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37).

When the eunuch had phillip help him interpret it showed that the Lord will send people to those whom seek if the need help understanding...The eunuch had NO idea who phillip was.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Dear Uphill Battle,

I can see where you are coming from, but perhaps we ought to say something about how icons are used in our worship. Let me describe what happens in my Church as a way of illustration.

Our Sunday service begins at 10.00 with the Raising of Incense and lasts until 10.45. Icons play no part here. The Divine Liturgy begins at 10.45 and goes on until 12.15. During that there are two points where the priest and the deacons turn to the icon of the Blessed Theotokos and say part of the doxology; then they turn to the icon of St. John the Forerunner and say that part of the doxology which refers to him. That's it.

When we enter the Church we kiss the icon and perform a prostration towards the altar. That's the only other place icons are involved.

But, of course, they are an integral part of our worship, because they are the 'clouds of witnesses' by whom we are surrounded, so they remind us of those Christian souls who have gone before us. I don't think this amounts to an excessive concentration on icons.

Peace,

Anglian

kiss what Icon?

 

[Thekla]

I'll repeat myself gods, -The Hebrew word rendered "gods" is simply the name of God in its plural form,. The image made was single, and therefore it would be imputing to the 10 tribes a greater sin than they were guilty of using an obvious false IMAGE of God (the calf) to worship.

the term you refer to, "elohim" is used aprox. 2500 times in the OT. Of these 2500 uses, it is used in reference to God aprox. 250 times (10%).

 

[Thekla]

The prohibition was for men, not God.
Same as the incident where Jesus was criticized for gathering wheatberries on the Sabboth.

Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man; David also 'transgressed' Sabbath law.

And it wasn't against them in general, just for religious purposes.

maybe you can find an OT example to support this ?
Per the bulk of the OT (as with Jeroboam) the restriction is against worshiping other gods; regional heathen worship included idols (false gods; demons per the Psalmist)

When god commanded their use in His temple He didn't simply tell them to use them, He told them exactly which ones & how to make & use them, right? I think that's significantly different than saying, "Ok, I know I told ya not use images, but go ahead & put some in my temple."

As with Christ's teaching on the Sabbath (and almsgiving, fasting, etc), here a distinction is shown between right use and wrong use.

 

[simonthezealot]

the term you refer to, "elohim" is used aprox. 2500 times in the OT. Of these 2500 uses, it is used in reference to God aprox. 250 times (10%).

Your way off pretty much exactly the opposite! god here used is the word 'elohiym, which by the way is used,2606 times and 2347 of those refering to God Almighty..

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

You write:

That's how the orthodox interpret the cloud of witness?
I thought that was just a bad RC apologetic tactic.

no, it is one of the ways.

If you are suggesting that no one can know, then God has given us a worthless book.

That was not what was being suggested. If we read the Scriptures within the whole of Tradition, we get the best reading possible. How do you know your own reading is the right one?

Paul writes, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of

the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37).

When the eunuch had phillip help him interpret it showed that the Lord will send people to those whom seek if the need help understanding...The eunuch had NO idea who phillip was.

And for every eunuch who divined the word aright, there is a heretic who didn't.

I don't know whether you are going to respond to the substantive argument in the earlier posts, but the question remains, that we seem to have a choice here: believe that what an individual American in the early twenty-first century tells us his reading the Holy Scriptures means, or believe in the two thousand year old reading within the Holy Tradition of the Church which canonised the book he claims as his authority?

The wisdom of the ages or of this age? Not a hard one.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Your way off pretty much exactly the opposite! god here used is the word 'elohiym, which by the way is used,2606 times and 2347 of those refering to God Almighty..

I may have misread my source, so OK

the word is also used to refer to angels, humans and false gods; as I mentioned before the LXX translation is "gods" in the relevant passages; the KJV also has the prophet of God chastising Jeroboam for introducing the worship of "other gods". In this, and other instances in the OT, the use of the word other provides understanding for gods as false (and iirc, these other gods are worshipped as idols)

 

[Anglian]

Dear Thelka,

Amidst the trees here, I'm losing sight of the shape of the wood. What is now being argued? If Simon accepts that the veneration of icons is not the same as worshipping a graven image, exactly what is the argument now about?


Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

kiss what Icon?

As we enter the Church there is an icon of the Lord which we venerate in this manner.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Uphill Battle]

thanks for the info.

 

[Yarddog]

I'll repeat myself gods, -The Hebrew word rendered "gods" is simply the name of God in its plural form,. The image made was single, and therefore it would be imputing to the 10 tribes a greater sin than they were guilty of using an obvious false IMAGE of God (the calf) to worship.

Hello Simon,

Are you slipping back here. The calf was not the God that Moses was with on the mountain. The calf, itself, was a god in the minds of the Israelites. They were not worshipping our God and Father. Nowhere is it implied that the calf was the same God that Moses was with.


Yarddog

 

[Anglian]

Dear Yarddog,

Good question. I had thought we had agreed that the first commandment forbade the worship of any God but the One God, and that the Catholic and Orthodox veneration is of that One God. If I was wrong, that would explain why I'm having trouble wondering what the discussion is now about.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

Interpretation should be judged on the content of the interpretation, not the pedigree of the interpreter.
Cain, son of Adam who walked with God personaly interpreted God's sacrifice instructions wrong.
Moses himself interpreted a direct communication from God wrongly & was kept out of the Promised Land,
Aaron interpreted Moses' absence wrongly & made a golden Calf.
King David, the man "after God's own heart" made mistakers.
His son Solomon, wisest masn ever, made serious errors in judgement.

"The Holy tradition of The Church which cannonized" is a completely misleading phrase. It doesn't acknowledge that that church split, that there were different cannons, and that even bibles today have different numbers of books, and different lexicons, and some even have dropped & added text.
Basing authority on pedigree is more problematic than basing authority on truth.
At least with the latter, the argument is confined to the legitimacy of truth & not inclusive of arguments over legitimacy of pedigree.

I think Simon is simply being polite in accepting the hypocritical denial that veneration is indeed worship as the Holy Church points out in its encyclopedia, articulating latria, dulia, & hyperdulia.

I think it is also hypocracy to complain about redefinition by modernization of definitions on the one hand, and to insist on the modern popular redefinition of worship on the other.

It doesn't matter how old & holy you can claim to be, you're still vulnerable to serious error.

 

[Rick Otto]

Nowhere is it implied that the calf was the same God that Moses was with.

Isn't that exactly what Aaron expliciltly stated (not implied)? Or is your statement meant to restrict itself to the Jereboam incident?