ECF's -Which ones were right?

[simonthezealot]

nobody's making you bow to an "idol" simon.

nobody can take away Icons from the other side either.

Nope they sure aren't making me...I wouldn't for fear of offending my maker.

Oh yeah someone can take away the icons.
-God, the history as written in the OT shows as much and God is the same yesterday today and forever.

They offend Him that much is clear in scripture you can choose not to speak up against it but I won't be so quiet.

Peace.

 

[Uphill Battle]

How is kissing an icon or let us say the crucifix the same as kissing the idol of Zeus?

The Jews opposed to kissing ANY Christian symbol (although the Orthdox Jews kiss the Shema every time they go in and out from their homes) an idol... because Christ was a "blasphemere" since God had no son.. Not because they objected it be an idol...They had other motives for rejecting Christ. The icons was the "icing on the cake" in their proving that He had nothing to do with "their" God and Christians were worshiping a false god... an idol...

But this was all nice a dandy to do....

kissing a schroll....venerating it ... I can say they worship it if i wanted to be picky could I??

Or also kissing the Torah...



or a muslim woman kissing the Koran...

How this is different? Are these good folks worshiping the book?? or their content?

You decide...

I tend to agree with you on this.

I personally believe that the use of Icons is wholly unnecessary... but I would say that the same vein of "worship" is given the word of God itself.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

Let us examine this word 'worship' you use so readily.

Readily????????????

You guys have been trying to back me into a corner for this very purpose that much is obvious, 200 Plus posts the accusations of worship did not come from my mouth it actually came from your putting words in my mouth, so now it is READILY.
You have no desire to discuss the valid points of this topic and have not a bit.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Nope they sure aren't making me...I wouldn't for fear of offending my maker.

Oh yeah someone can take away the icons.
-God, the history as written in the OT shows as much and God is the same yesterday today and forever.

They offend Him that much is clear in scripture you can choose not to speak up against it but I won't be so quiet.

Peace.

Simon, nobody ever figured that you'd be quiet... don't worry!

and I think you are confusing Roman Catholicism with the Orthodox in this one matter.

 

[simonthezealot]

... but I would say that the same vein of "worship" is given the word of God itself.

Yes with some even though it shouldn't be.

 

[Uphill Battle]

how much respect do you apply to the word of God?

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon, nobody ever figured that you'd be quiet... don't worry!

and I think you are confusing Roman Catholicism with the Orthodox in this one matter.

Good one UB, and your right no probably ever would figure that.

Nope disgruntled with both the same as the both have a required allegiance to the council of 787. They both face the same unscriptural issues regarding relics and icons.

 

[simonthezealot]

how much respect do you apply to the word of God?

Your speaking of kissing the bible and such I assumed? well put it this way I have never kissed my bible...I don't tiz out if I drop it on the floor...
Nor would I ever show veneration to the book any more than looking to the sky and praising my Lord for giving a us a way for HIM to communicate to us.

 

[Anglian]

Readily????????????

You guys have been trying to back me into a corner for this very purpose that much is obvious, 200 Plus posts the accusations of worship did not come from my mouth it actually came from your putting words in my mouth, so now it is READILY.
You have no desire to discuss the valid points of this topic and have not a bit.

Dear Simon,

I have tried, in quite a few posts now to have a serious discussion with you. You, in turn, have seized on one word, without in any way engaging with the ideas put forward in those posts.

No one is trying to back you into any corner. You have been claiming that worship and veneration are practically synonymous; I have tried to show you why we think they are not. You asked questions, I have tried to provide some detailed answers. I am unsure whether you are interested in a serious discussion, but if you are, I shall look forward to some engagement with the ideas and arguments.


Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

Readily????????????

You guys have been trying to back me into a corner for this very purpose that much is obvious, 200 Plus posts the accusations of worship did not come from my mouth it actually came from your putting words in my mouth, so now it is READILY.
You have no desire to discuss the valid points of this topic and have not a bit.

I'M the one who claims veneration is worship, & that the invention of equating intention with acceptable degrees thereof is vain imagination.
The One True Holy Roman & Apostolic Church articulates this folly in their online encyclopedia.
At this point (since at LEAST 1054)it is self-defeating to refer to "The Church" as one thing in complete agreement with itself.


Simon, I can't figure out from reading exactly what the claim & contention about Jeroboam was.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

In your post 290 you wrote:

I certainly take serious issue with the image practice your church and the catholic DEEM a necessity, I am not familiar enough with your dulia hyper dulia type lingo to accuse anyone of worship in the strichtest sense, but I do generally observe that if things act walk and talk like a duck 999 out 1000 times they are a duck.

which seemed to me, as it still does, to imply that worship and veneration are practically the same.

If you do not think veneration practically identical with worship, just what are you trying to assert?

If you would still care to engage with the points set out in my posts about the useage of the words found in the Bible, I am happy to discuss things with you; polemical asides, whilst enjoyable, I can leave to you, as you are a much better polemicist than I shall ever be.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

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:

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

I can accept we see that fullness 'in human form' but we could never see the 'fullness' of God per se because God is to that extent beyond all knowing

 

[Montalban]

interesting! I can get all the same experiences on a picnic lunch in the park.

You're not one who sees Jesus in a burrito are you?

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.

Well, if you want to have corporate experiential worship without one of the senses experiencing, then I suppose you could just close your eyes. I don't see what the point would be.

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!

You could quote Hitler in a context to say, for example "Even Hitler was fond of art", or something. However I think you're protesting against people using evidence that supports their case, and I don't follow that drift.

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.

As long as they realise he wasn't 100% Kosher, then I don't see a problem with quoting supporting evidence. That seems to be your beef.

It's like "Origen said..." and you say "Oh yes, but he also believed this..." which is irrelevant... to an extent... although I do see you point insofar as them quoting him as an authority

 

[Thekla]

the witness of the martyr Stephen in reference to whom or what was worshipped after the Exodus from Egypt:

To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
Acts 7:40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
Acts 7:41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
Acts 7:42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?
Acts 7:43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

Moloch went by many names including, but not limited to, Ba'al, Moloch, Apis Bull, Golden Calf, Chemosh, as well as many other names, and was widely worshipped in the Middle East and wherever Punic culture extended (including, but not limited to, the Ammonites, Edomites and the Moabites). Baal Moloch was conceived under the form of a calf or an ox or depicted as a man with the head of a bull.

Remphan - (Acts 7:43; R.V., "Rephan"). In Amos 5:26 the Heb. Chiun (q.v.) is rendered by the LXX. "Rephan," and this name is adopted by Luke in his narrative of the Acts. These names represent the star-god Saturn or Moloch.

http://www.biblelearn.com/east3103.htmBible Dictionary


Remphan
(acts 7:43) and Chi un, (amos 5:26) have been supposed to be names of an idol worshipped secretly by the Israelites in the wilderness, difficulty has been occasioned by this corresponding occurrence of two names so wholly different in sound. The most reasonable opinion seems to be that Chiun was a Hebrew or Semitic name, and Remphan an Egyptian equivalent substituted by the LXX. This idol corresponded probably to Saturn or Molech. The mention of Chiun or Remphan as worshipped in the desert shows that this idolatry was, in part at least that of foreigners, and no doubt of those settled in lower Egypt.

http://remphan.idoneos.com/

it seems that they were constantly returning/falling back to the worship of "other gods"; it happened in Exodus and again ... as the problem continued, some even sacrificed their children

 

[Montalban]

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?

Indeed that can happen, but not in the case where Rick Otto replied to a post, but didn't answer specific questions. He then gave a statement about why he thought he was being trapped.

 

[Rick Otto]

I bought that statement on ebay.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Uphill Battle interesting! I can get all the same experiences on a picnic lunch in the park.

You're not one who sees Jesus in a burrito are you?

Hey, we can't let the Catholics have all the fun

 

[Montalban]

I bought that statement on ebay.

I bet you paid millions!

(in ZWD - Zimbabwe Dollars)

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, yeah, almost... but I had the extra money because I answered an email & helped the son of Chief Bagudu Nwafor clear a consignment of his father's assets from a Securities Company in Cape Town by opening a nonresident account in Madrid where he was living as a refugee from the racist regime, so he could transfer the $18,525,000.
Didn't you get the email?

 

[Philothei]

Hey I always get those annoying emails...How did you all get so out off topic here?....lol....

BTW Mr. Rick Otto Are you ever bored of your "smoking" Catholic nuns avatar?

(I always wanted to ask you that...)

This borders sacreligious LLOJ....I mean it borders offensive but ...really some things by the RCs can be pretty silly(stupid I meant ...ooops )....Like a magnet set with Madona with Christ ... and different change of clothes... for the fridge.. .I ended up throwing it in the trash I was so mad.....I could find it but it would be a shame to put it up...

It is about respect of the image after all not the opposite....