Re-visiting the 2nd Commandment

[Ryan1976]

The 2nd commandment issue seems to be a heated topic. But to avoid controversy and hopefully just to explain where Orthodox are coming from, I offer the following snip-its. You don't have to agree and this debate is pretty old, even amongst Catholics. I am not aware of the RCC's stance on certain things like statues and how they actually view images/statues in relation to how God/Christians use them so I can only offer the Orthodox perspective.

A few questions I might ask though, in the face of such controversy:

Have you ever pictured Jesus in your own mind or put yourself in the shoes of the disciples when Jesus washed their feet or in the woman's shoes (though they wore sandals) when she washed Jesus feet?

I'm sure if took those images and compared them side by side to Jesus actual feet, insofar as they wrong, we would be guilty of picturing something contrary to the actual image of Christ, in our minds. Will we have to answer for this in the life to come? Pray we won't.

When you pledge your allegiance to the flag of your country are you actually pledging your allegiance to your Country above God? Is it alright to swear on the bible (personally I would say no, in this case)?

Is it wrong for an athlete to kiss a trophy they've just received?

Is it wrong to burn a cross? Absolutely. However, if it's just an empty religious object devoid of any honor or respect (veneration) then why the offense?

Was Paul wrong to hug his chains?

Is it wrong to kiss a picture of a loved one that you've lost or have not seen in a long while? Is it the actual picture that compels you to kiss the picture? Is it the paper and the image that you kiss? If you had a child and you lost your wife/husband and you gave a picture of the loved one to the child and the child hugged or kissed the picture, is the child wrong?

Also, because this issue can get side-tracked on the Saints issue. Let it be known that there's a difference between canonized Saints and believer saints. Canonized Saints are just Saints that, according to the whole (which is the definition of 'Catholic') are recognized as Saints. St. Paul is an example. St. John etc. Saints that everyone knows. Though, I must admit, not everyone is savvy to who all the canonized Saints are because there are so many.

Also in contrast to the RCC, we don't have saints for very specific things as in the RCC. Like, if you are a fireman I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) then you can pray to a specific Saint that seems (to me anyway) to specialize in something that has to do with being a fireman. In short, I think RCC and the EO see prayer/intercession of the Saints quite differently.

Also, if a loved one passes on and as many in protestantism say, "they've gone to be with the Lord", they too are considered Saints.

Ok, I'm sort of just mentioning things that come to mind when people hear Saints.

The following snip-its will help you see an Orthodox perspective. By no means exhaustive.

2. Do Orthodox Christians pray to Icons?

Christians pray in the presence of Icons (just as Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple), but we do not pray to the image.


5. Doesn't the 2nd Commandment forbid Icons?

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 Hebrews—and 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.
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. Furthermore, if this applies to all images—then even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol. So either every Protestant with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what this text actually says about them. You shall not make x, you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x. If x = image, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment. If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons.



9. Why were there only Icons of Cherubim, and not of Saints?


(this question is in response to the fact that there are icons of Cherubim etc. in the OT temple because it was a shadow and copy of the things in Heaven - see Hebrews etc.)

The Temple was an image of Heaven, as St. Paul makes clear:

"[the priests who serve in the Temple in Jerusalem] serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount" (Hebrews 8:5; cf. Exodus 25:40).

Before Christ came in the flesh and triumphed over death by His Resurrection, the Saints of the Old Testament were not in the presence of God in Heaven, but were in Sheol (often translated as "the grave", and translated as "hades" in Greek). Before Christ's Resurrection, Sheol was the destiny of both the just and the unjust (Genesis 37:35; Isaiah 38:10), though their lot there was by no means the same. As we see in Christ's parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31; cf. Enoch 22:8-15 [although the book of Enoch is not included in the Canon of Holy Scripture, it is a venerable part of Holy Tradition and is quoted in the Epistle of St. Jude, as well as in many of the writings of the holy fathers]) there was a gulf that separated the just from the unjust, and while the righteous were in a state of blessedness, the wicked were (and are) in a state of torment—the righteous awaited their deliverance through Christ's Resurrection, while the wicked fearfully awaited their judgment. Thus under the old covenant, prayers were said only for the departed, because they were not yet in heaven to intercede on our behalves. For as St. Paul said to the Hebrews when speaking of the Old Testament Saints, "And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us" (Hebrews 11:39-40). In Hebrews 12, St. Paul goes on to contrast the nature of the Old Covenant (12:18ff) with that of the New (12:22ff)—and among the distinctions he makes, he says that in the New Covenant we "are come unto... the spirits of just men made perfect (12:22-23). As both the Scriptures and the rest of Holy Tradition tell us, while Christ's body lay in the tomb, His Spirit descended into Sheol and proclaimed liberty to the captives (Ephesians 4:8-10; 1st Peter 3:19, 4:6; cf. Matthew 27:52-53). And these Saints that have triumphed over this world, now reign with Christ in Glory (2nd Timothy 2:12), and continually offer up prayers for us before the Lord (Revelation 5:8; the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, Ch. 7 [St. Ignatius was one of the disciples of the Apostle John, and was made Bishop of Antioch by him]).
Thus, while in the Old Covenant, the Temple imaged heaven with only the attending Cherubim, in the New Covenant, our Temples image heaven with the great cloud of witnesses that now reside in glory there.

If you would like to read the entire article which has about 11 FAQ about Orthodox icons you can CLICK HERE.


The following snip-it has to do with Calvin's view on icons and there's some pretty interesting historical info in there as well as some picture of Jewish/early Christian images that were/are found in the temples/Churches/places of worship.

As one of the leading theologians of the Protestant Reformation John Calvin helped define and shape Protestant theology. One of Calvin's lasting legacies is Protestantism's iconoclasm. According to Georg Kretschmar, "Calvin built up the most precise and radical position opposed to the icon theology of the 787 Council of Nicea" (1990:80). Where Luther was quite tolerant of images in churches, Calvin and his followers were much more vigorous in their opposition to images in the church. As a consequence, Protestant places of worship have a stark austerity in comparison to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches.

CLICK HERE to read the entire article.


And this is from Eusebius of Caesarea. You kind find some of his works online.

NPNF2: Vol. I, The Church History of Eusebius, Book 7, Chapter 18.

Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon

2 an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of
3 Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those

4 of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings,140 the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – c. 339[1]) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, "Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus") became the bishop of Caesarea Palaestina, the capital of Iudaea province, c 314.[1] He is often referred to as the Father of Church History because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church, especially Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History[1].



I hope that the information will at least show that not a small amount of reverence for God has gone into the use of icons. Icons have a very long and winding history. Wouldn't hurt to check it out.


God bless,




Federer kissing his trophy....

[Ryan1976]

Ah, and don't forget to check out how some of the different ways in which the religions/denominations divide the Ten Commandments. That in and of itself is another can of worms but it's good to know.

Wikipedia has a chart in the middle of the page that shows the differences in how each denom/religion breaks up the Ten Commandments.

CLICK TO GO TO WIKI


The chart doesn't show up well on here. Dunno why. Blame the NWO.

:P

[Thaddaeus]

I think as most folks that get mislead, you have taken the first part of the commandment and ran with it but have totally overlooked the second. this is concerning false idols or Idolatry. again the point is not that it is wrong to have these things but rather wrong to worship these things as to believe that an image of anything, can change our life in any aspect

Ex 20:4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:Ex 20:5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;



Verse 4 and 5 has to go together as the second commandment. if they are sperate then we have 11 commandments and not tenso intrepret the second as we can not any image that we intend on bowing down to. the way you are teaching this then you would have to say that God told his people to sin with the fiery serpent, and I don't think you want to say that God told people to sin.

Nu 21:6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.Nu 21:7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.Nu 21:8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.Nu 21:9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
the fiery serpent was an image but they weren't told to bow down to it, and they believed God that if they did what He said they would be healed, they did not believe that the serpent itself had power to heal. so thus we can only come to the conclusion images in their selves are not a sin but rather what we do with the images is what can be the sin

Well said! "for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,". Is so impoirtant. I think many are missing this very fact.

[Ryan1976]

I think as most folks that get mislead, you have taken the first part of the commandment and ran with it but have totally overlooked the second. this is concerning false idols or Idolatry. again the point is not that it is wrong to have these things but rather wrong to worship these things as to believe that an image of anything, can change our life in any aspect

Hm. I agree that we aren't supposed to worship anything or anyone other than God. You will find that Catholics agree.

I would say that it is wrong to have idols even if you do not worship them.

I do believe that an image can, in a way, change our life. Wasn't Jesus the image of the invisible God? Aren't the words printed in the bible simply symbolic imagery that represent thoughts and or objects etc. It is not the ink and the paper and the way in which the ink is shaped on the page that makes the scriptures Holy but that God spoke through the prophets who then spoke through the words. It's not that the words are Holy but that they have become a means through which He acts, they do deserve honor and respect. (for clarity's sake, take the word THE for instance. We find it in the bible. Is the word THE Holy?).

We know that if we burned a bible, the Word of God would not burn, only the paper and the ink. However, the fact that God spoke through that paper and ink is what makes burning that particular paper and ink so wrong. We inherently know this.

Ex 20:4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:Ex 20:5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Ezekiel 18:20 (New International Version)

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.






I agree, God is a jealous God. We don't serve man.

Verse 4 and 5 has to go together as the second commandment. if they are sperate then we have 11 commandments and not tenso intrepret the second as we can not any image that we intend on bowing down to. the way you are teaching this then you would have to say that God told his people to sin with the fiery serpent, and I don't think you want to say that God told people to sin.

Hm. I'm not saying that we should have, if were were to go back in a time machine, worship the Snake. I don't understand how or where I directly or indirectly explained that God told people to sin...

Nu 21:6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.Nu 21:7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.Nu 21:8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.Nu 21:9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

God required us to look at the raised Snake (a thing indicating the resurrection of our Lord) and by doing so out of faithful obedience, God healed. The Snake did not heal. I agree.

the fiery serpent was an image but they weren't told to bow down to it, and they believed God that if they did what He said they would be healed, they did not believe that the serpent itself had power to heal. so thus we can only come to the conclusion images in their selves are not a sin but rather what we do with the images is what can be the sin

Right. I agree. If you read the article the Snake issue comes up. I'm simply explaining to you that Catholics aren't idolaters and are aware that God alone is to be worshiped.


Though I might have disagreed with some of what you said, I recognize that you spoke out of Love and out of concern, and for that, I am grateful and insofar as Love is concerned, I can hear Him in you.

Thank you for extending respect. I look forward to more conversations on difficult subjects that appear to have divided His children.

He is risen!

[MahogonySnail]

It's quite clear to me that Catholics idolise and worship Mary. Who was not God, and not the Son of God, or part of the God-head.

[MahogonySnail]

Now the Catholic might say they are merely venerating or adoring Mary , not worshipping her. But I have noticed this veneration or adoration of Mary is more worship than not. Veneration and adoration is worship. No where in the bible is there one example of any saint, apostle, or Jesus himself, venerating or adoring Mary. In fact, Jesus calls her 'woman' (John 19:26), which is not out of disrespect to her being mother...but the point is there is nothing in the whole of scripture of Mary being immaculate, the "Queen of Heaven," and "the Mother of God,"

[Ryan1976]

Veneration and adoration is worship

.

Venerate:

1 : to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference

2 : to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion


Hm. You can do a word search in a concordance for honor, respect, etc. You will quickly discover that veneration is not worship. But we also have to realize that veneration of the Saints are quite another thing. Most of the people at the time those epistles/gospels were written were alive alive. They are certainly still alive for God is a God of the living and the Saints now see him face to face.

there is nothing in the whole of scripture of Mary being immaculate, the "Queen of Heaven," and "the Mother of God,"

Yeah, we don't read of Trinity or even read about Holy scripture (bible) except for when it refers to the Old Testament. Sometimes you have just have faith that the folks who canonized the bible were led by the Holy Spirit when they formulated some of these doctrines/theologies. You could always read up on them or ask a Catholic but often times it seems like protestants just juxtapose their reformed theology onto Catholicism (East and West) instead of actually understanding what East/West is actually saying.

Gets a little discouraging at times but...

The Orthodox don't have Immaculate conception. You will have to ask a Roman Catholic why they believe in this doctrine.

The Queen of Heaven stuff is a sticky issue. Wiki it and if you know anything about councils etc. might help you understand why such terms are used and what exactly is meant by them. One thing to think about, while Jesus was in the womb, this womb is often pictured as a throne. At no time did Jesus cease to be fully man/fully God.

Mother of God is quite another thing. I think this one is easily explained. I think it was John the Baptist's Mother that called Mary the Mother of her Lord. But more importantly, if we don't call Mary the Mother of God then Jesus ceased to be God while in the womb. We can never separate the natures of Jesus who is fully God/fully Man.

Look up Theotokos and how the heresies against using this term, "God-bearer" were fought against and for what reasons. You might be surprised that it actually makes sense.

I would say again that Catholics are not idolaters but we're edging closely toward vain repetition (punny!).


God bless, MahoganySnail.

sometimes after i eat something spicey i have to re-visit the bathroom..

[MahogonySnail]

1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred. 2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning. 3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success. 4. the object of adoring reverence or regard. 5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her). –verb (used with object) 6. to render religious reverence and homage to. 7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
–verb (used without object) 8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity. 9. to attend services of divine worship. 10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship

They do indeed worship in every sense of the word. Veneration is worship. As a protestant I respect Mary too. But I don't ask for her help, I don't make statues or images of her, I don't include her name in with the God-head or inplace of in prayers or songs. Because I don't worship her.

Find one example in the new testament where the apostles worshipped, let alone even venerated, the mother of Christ?

When did Paul carve out a statue of Mary and put it outside the church? When did Peter? When did either of them bow down to an image of Mary?
Please show us from the Scriptures.

[Ryan1976]

They do indeed worship in every sense of the word. Veneration is worship.

We honor the Saints/Mary. We can play semantics games but you can't juxtapose your pre-suppositions upon the Catholics and say, well, I say they worship, though they say they do not, therefore, because I say they do, they do. This is not unlike when muslims try to say that three can not be one because when you use addition and apply that rule to Christianity, you wind up with 1+1+1=3. A Christian can say, but we do not worship 3, but 3 in 1 and the muslim will reply with, you worship not 1 but 3. On and on until he returns...

You say, oh, he kissed that picture of St. John. See, he's an idolater!

We say, we kiss the picture as we would kiss a picture of a departed loved one. It is not the picture that we are kissing but an expression of love for the departed brother and or sister. Further, because we know that our brother is not dead but alive, face to face with Christ, it is also an expression of love toward Christ who, having been found in our brother, did wonderful things. It's also somewhat celebratory. There's joy knowing that a loved one is with Christ.

If my blood brother were a missionary and he was killed doing missionary work and I kept a picture of him and whenever I missed him, felt compelled and kissed the picture, am I an idolater? If I wiped the tear and then smiled at the picture as if he were standing here with me (though standing there with him would be better) and I said, pray for me that you might see me again and that I too might see Him, both face to face and in you... Am I an idolater?

1 Thessalonians 5:26
Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.

Just because they've departed doesn't mean we stop showing our brothers and sisters love. Doesn't mean we think that they are God. Is Christ not found in us if in fact, we are, in the end, found in Christ?

As a protestant I respect Mary too.

When I was a protestant I found myself saying this too but I don't remember doing anything other than having a cognitive awareness or a feeling of respect for her but I never knew that I could actually express that. When I realized that God was not a God of the dead, but of the living and that I was badly mistaken, I found myself standing with Christians that (as far as we can historically prove) date back to the early 2nd century. And if you read any of the accounts of St. Ignatius' martyrdom you'll find that it's probable that those Early Christians asked for the prayers of their departed brothers and sisters because after his martyrdom they collectively had a vision of St. Ignatius praying for them. That takes place at the turn of the first century.

There's a similar story in regards to St. Polycarp. Both St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp knew and were instructed by St. John, the beloved disciple.

But I don't ask for her help

It's unfortunate that many Christians concept of Heaven is pretty much a disembodied Utopian Theme Park. Have you read the "what is Heaven like" thread? Most of these concepts are centered on self and don't sound unlike the Islamic fantasies about x amount of young women and lots of wine etc.

People are quick to say, there is only 1 intercessor and to pray to God alone but five seconds later someone comes around asking for prayer. We say, I will pray with you and for you. Paul tells us to make intercessions on behalf of others. And there's nothing wrong in asking someone to pray for you.

The only difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants believe that a departed loved one is somehow too busy in Heaven on their merry-go-round to be concerned with what God is concerned with. As if there was a disconnect. A place where we get pampered and our wildest whims come true and God just does His own thing (and if any protestant reading this doesn't believe this, then I am not addressing you).

However, a Catholic believes that there is no death after death for those that are found in Christ. There is only everlasting life and life after death is a time when we will be in a much more perfect communion with God. Face to face. So we ask those who have departed to pray for us. We don't worship them. We don't pray TO them. Though, I am sure, your fleshy eyes will disagree.

Catholics see help as a family affair. We also value the continuity of life. He has conquered death and though our bodies may fall asleep, we never fall. Our family stretches back to Adam and includes those recent brothers and sisters that go to be with the Lord. We never stop asking them to pray for us that we might one day join them.

I don't make statues or images of her

I can't speak for the RCC but in regards to icnography it's not willy nilly. There are pretty strict guidelines as what we consider appropriate. Like most things Orthodox, the guidelines are established by what came before it. So on and so forth all the way back to some of the earliest of earliest of portraits of Jesus, Mary, etc.

I don't include her name in with the God-head

Either do we.

or inplace of in prayers or songs. Because I don't worship her.

Yeah, out of the thirty or so pages of prayers an Orthodox might go through on any given day, there are only about two and half three pages worth of prayers asking Mary and the saints for their prayers. We don't worship her or the Saints.

Find one example in the new testament where the apostles worshipped, let alone even venerated, the mother of Christ?

Well, they never worshiped the mother of Christ because you're not supposed to worship anyone or anything other than God. That's why we don't worship Mary. However, she was certainly honored. God Himself honored her. If Jesus did not honor her then he broke one the commandments, no?

When did Paul carve out a statue of Mary and put it outside the church? When did Peter? When did either of them bow down to an image of Mary? Please show us from the Scriptures.

Again, a lot of modern Christian have no clue about their Christian roots. People just somehow accept this word of mouth story about how early Christianity was tainted and corrupted by paganism and then it just got worse and worse until the 1500's when suddenly the knights in shining armor showed up and put the Church back on track. However, Protestantism has mutated faster and more violently than has Roman Catholicism. If Luther returned to see his "reformed" church he'd probably die again, if possible. Likewise for Calvin and all the other so-called reformers.

If we look at acts, we see that most of those bible-times Christians were going to temple. They also weren't quite sure whether or not they should circumcise. They formed a council and led by the Holy Spirit, arrived at a revelation in regards to how they should treat this issue.

Now, those councils continued and though most Protestants don't refute the validity of the council that took place in Acts (because, well, it's in the bible) they often don't realize that neither do they refute the validity of the council that canonized the New Testament. Neither do they refute some of the creeds and or Trinitarian theologies. However they reduce those to mere sentiment, stripping out what they like, and ditching whatever isn't congruent with their modern and spiritually wiser (ahem) beliefs. However, beyond that, it's all pagan and or frivolous. Insofar as the Catholics agree with whatever flavor of protestant they're talking with, they are correct but insofar as they seem wrong to them, they are deceived. It is not unlike dealing with the Pope.

In 431 Mary was given the official title of Theotokos - God-bearer (but this title is also found in the 2nd century). Like the canonization of the Holy Bible it became necessary to stand against Heresy and protect the flock and also make sure that we accurately and without error express who our God IS. If Mary is simply the Mother of a man then what we are saying to those listening to us, is that while Jesus was in Mary's womb, Jesus was simply a man. The JWs would love this. The fact is, Jesus is God the Son, equal in nature to the Father.

It is in Mary's womb where the Son of God took on full human nature, while never ceasing to be God. To call Mary anything less than Theotokos is to split the two natures of who Jesus is and diminishes and hides the Incarnation. Jesus is fully man, fully God. Mary gave birth to Jesus. Is it accurate to say that Mary is the only person to have ever given God something that God did not already possess? Human nature?

If the separation from God/the fall of all humanity came first through Eve's rejecting Him it's suitable that a woman must accept Him back on behalf of all humanity. If we are not Calvinists then we can agree that God will not force Himself upon us and against our will, Save us. Mary, of her own free-will, reversed what Eve, of her own free will, rejected - Communion with God.

God saves but like a photographic negative of Eve, Mary, of her own free-will, made it possible for the 2nd Adam to reverse the garden of Eden and the whole world reaps (if they so choose) the fruit of her womb.

Mary is the first Christian, no?

So, Catholics don't ever forget the role she played in their lives. They kiss anything that reminds them of her and Christ and any of the Saints. They ask her to pray for them (and for you) and honor her as Theotokos. This doesn't make the Catholics idolaters. They just really really really love God and His entire family and aren't afraid to express it.

In Christ,
Ryan

[MahogonySnail]

1 Thessalonians 5:26
Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.

Nice scripture, but spoken to the living not to the dead. You claim they are alive, but they aren't, they are dead. They will not have their resurrected and glorified bodies until at the end of time. Except for Christ, who did ascend into heaven in glorified bodily form.

We say, we kiss the picture as we would kiss a picture of a departed loved one. It is not the picture that we are kissing but an expression of love for the departed brother and or sister. Further, because we know that our brother is not dead but alive, face to face with Christ, it is also an expression of love toward Christ who, having been found in our brother, did wonderful things. It's also somewhat celebratory. There's joy knowing that a loved one is with Christ.

In that case, accept a picture of my dead grandfather, wonderful Christian man, would you like to kiss it too? You may kiss the image of Mary or a saint, but you don't know them personally, you've never met them. They probably don't know you either. You don't even know what they look like.

If I wiped the tear and then smiled at the picture as if he were standing here with me (though standing there with him would be better) and I said, pray for me that you might see me again and that I too might see Him, both face to face and in you... Am I an idolater?

Nah you'd be an emotional sap. But I know that things go beyond simply kissing a picture as you describe, as a kind of memorial, the common practice involves worship, in every sense of the word.

Paul tells us to make intercessions on behalf of others. And there's nothing wrong in asking someone to pray for you.

They're dead. Do you understand what dead means. There is a separation between us on earth and those in hades or heaven, simply because Mary or any dead saint cannot and does not talk back to you. And if they do I'd seek demonic deliverance. We could ask any dead person to pray for me, but would they? How would I know? It is vain imagination that a dead person, any dead person, hears, let alone responds, to the requests of the living. Much more, no evidence that the prayers of a person who invokes the help of the saints, receives any greater miracle or answer to prayer than the protestant who doesn't.

So we ask those who have departed to pray for us. We don't worship them. We don't pray TO them.

Prayer is the act of addressing a god or a spirit, and asking any dead person to pray for you and if your communication is directed to that dead person, it is prayer in every sense of the word.

The fact is you are unable to produce any example of any saint or anyone in the canonical scriptures venerating, let along worshipping an image, statue, or otherwise of a dead saint. And that says a lot about the credibility of the beliefs you present on this issue.

Well, they never worshiped the mother of Christ because you're not supposed to worship anyone or anything other than God. That's why we don't worship Mary. However, she was certainly honored. God Himself honored her. If Jesus did not honor her then he broke one the commandments, no?

The interesting thing is that Mary received the first recorded rebuke in Scripture "did you not know I had to be about my Father's business?" (paraphrased) when they lost Jesus.

Another interesting thing is that Jesus did not always honor Mary's requests, despite the commandment to obey your parents. Jesus said to her "you must not tell me what to do".

Also, Jesus did not even acknowledge her presence on a number of occasions.

From scripture it is fairly clear that Jesus did not treat Mary in the same way that Catholics do today.

These disprove the whole notion of Mary having some sway over Jesus in heaven. That is completely unfounded. I prefer to go directly to the man Himself. You are more likely to get answered prayer that way, rather than going via His mother (if it were ever possible).

Mary in catholicism, is very much exalted to a place higher than Jesus ever gave her. The notions of her sinlessness and all of this too is baseless and leans towards the thing of an idol than not.

Kissing an image of a family member or close friend who has died, in memory, is one thing.
Praying or talking to them and excepting them to hear and answer, making statues and bowing down to them, is quite another thing. It is more like necromancy and idolatary than not. If it looks like, smells, and sounds like a duck, in all likelihood it is a duck.


You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex. 20:4-6)

[Ryan1976]

[quote=MahogonySnail;106532]

Nice scripture, but spoken to the living not to the dead. You claim they are alive, but they aren't, they are dead. They will not have their resurrected and glorified bodies until at the end of time. Except for Christ, who did ascend into heaven in glorified bodily form.

We look forward to getting glorification but we don't count ourselves as dead up until that part. Our bodies will sleep, but we will keep on a kickin', praying and having communion with God.

In that case, accept a picture of my dead grandfather, wonderful Christian man, would you like to kiss it too? You may kiss the image of Mary or a saint, but you don't know them personally, you've never met them. They probably don't know you either. You don't even know what they look like.

Well, we don't have icons of people that aren't recognized according to the whole. However, if I happen to make it to the Kingdom before you and your Grandfather is there, I will, as I will be doing now, pray with for you with him.

Trying to prove that you know Jesus to someone who thinks he's dead is nearly impossible. Much easier in the company of others that know Him because in that ecclesia, He is present and seen. An athiest would also ask, how can you know Jesus? You don't even know what he looks like! He probably doesn't even know you because he's dead. When did you meet Jesus? Did he shake your hand? etc..

Guess we'll have to chalk this one up to a wait and see.

Nah you'd be an emotional sap. But I know that things go beyond simply kissing a picture as you describe, as a kind of memorial, the common practice involves worship, in every sense of the word.

You do realize that Jewish temples were adorned with images of events and people etc... That the first Christians considered themselves simply a true expression of Judaism. That both the OT Jews and the NT Christians were liturgical and sacramental all the way up until the late 1500s. That iconography was probably around when the disciples were still walking the earth.

They're dead. Do you understand what dead means. There is a separation between us on earth and those in hades or heaven, simply because Mary or any dead saint cannot and does not talk back to you.

Believers don't die. Their bodies fall asleep but that's about it. I agree though, there's a difference between seeing things dimly, now, and in our present situation, and then after the body falls asleep, clearly, face to face.

I don't understand the talk back to you bit. This must have something to do with the way in which you view prayer.

We could ask any dead person to pray for me, but would they? How would I know?

Well, I wouldn't recommend asking a spiritually dead person to pray for you...

It is vain imagination that a dead person, any dead person, hears, let alone responds, to the requests of the living. Much more, no evidence that the prayers of a person who invokes the help of the saints, receives any greater miracle or answer to prayer than the protestant who doesn't.

I guess that the early Christians were, in your mind, silly. It is not a comforting thought that a lot of protestants view the early Christians and all the martyrs up to the present who gave their very lives to Him, as spiritually inferior. That's the nature of the whole post-enlightenment, post-modern mind-set. We know better than all of the Christians that came before the 1500's except for the ones that God inspired to write the letters and gospels. Without realizing it, you're saying that the Church that Wesley, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin started is better, more well informed, spiritually superior than the one that the Apostles started. According to many protestants, the Apostles Churches fell sway to paganism and false doctrine not even a hundred years later.

Prayer is the act of addressing a god or a spirit, and asking any dead person to pray for you and if your communication is directed to that dead person, it is prayer in every sense of the word.

I don't ask for the prayers of a dead person.

(insert dead horse)

The fact is you are unable to produce any example of any saint or anyone in the canonical scriptures venerating, let along worshipping an image, statue, or otherwise of a dead saint. And that says a lot about the credibility of the beliefs you present on this issue.

I was trying to show you that outside of the bible the people that were being written to and about and that were writing, were actual real live people that did other things that weren't written down. The things they did and established continued on. There is continuity.

This is one of the side-effects of sola scriptura. You see great when you look at the bible but suddenly everything God established in the past 1500 years becomes hidden and it's only you and God and everyone else is dead.

One of the great things about not being protestant any more is I don't have to mine the bible to justify whatever it is I think is right. I am no longer my own Pope. I can see that the Holy Spirit led the Church to make decisions and those decisions were as trustworthy as the canonization of the bible.

(Orthodox don't recognize the Pope - for the record)

The interesting thing is that Mary received the first recorded rebuke in Scripture "did you not know I had to be about my Father's business?" (paraphrased) when they lost Jesus.

Another interesting thing is that Jesus did not always honor Mary's requests, despite the commandment to obey your parents. Jesus said to her "you must not tell me what to do".

Also, Jesus did not even acknowledge her presence on a number of occasions.

From scripture it is fairly clear that Jesus did not treat Mary in the same way that Catholics do today.

These disprove the whole notion of Mary having some sway over Jesus in heaven. That is completely unfounded. I prefer to go directly to the man Himself. You are more likely to get answered prayer that way, rather than going via His mother (if it were ever possible).

That's an interesting interpretation. I have not seen it before. If I wanted to diminish the role of Mary, I might be tempted to hold your interpretation above the Holy Scriptures. It's strange that you don't seem to separate your interpretation from the actual scriptures though - as if they are synonymous.

Danger Will Robinson, danger....

Mary in catholicism, is very much exalted to a place higher than Jesus ever gave her.

God chose Mary to be his Mother. God called her highly favored. She's the first Christian. How is it that we put her higher than she's already been lifted?

The notions of her sinlessness and all of this too is baseless and leans towards the thing of an idol than not.

Ah, this is Roman Catholic territory. Orthodox don't have the Immaculate doctrines. If you check out the doctrines (from an Eastern perspective) those Immaculate doctrines come out of Rome's (the base of protestantism as well) Original Sin doctrines.

It has less to do with idolatry and more to do with Latinized theologies.

Kissing an image of a family member or close friend who has died, in memory, is one thing. Praying or talking to them and excepting them to hear and answer, making statues and bowing down to them, is quite another thing. It is more like necromancy and idolatary than not. If it looks like, smells, and sounds like a duck, in all likelihood it is a duck.

You're taking a modern pre-supposition and juxtaposing it onto Catholicism which precedes both modernity and your perspective on the Faith. The only thing you are saying, over and over, is that you don't understand it because it doesn't fit in with how you have always viewed your faith and rather than revisit that, I'll simply take my interpretations of what the Faith is, color the scriptures to justify my novel views (sola) and just use that template whenever I stumble across anything contrary to it (1500 years of Christianity).

(insert lame duck)

You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;

We don't make idols. We don't worship them or bow down TO them.

for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Ex. 20:4-6)

God is a jealous God. That's why we worship Him alone.

Also, and this might be looking into as it also relates to most of the West's model of Original Sin:

Ezekiel 18:20 (New International Version)

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.


Again, I'm aware that this topic can get heated but I think it's important to talk about such things. I do hope we can continue to keep it civil, though we are both getting a little punchy here and there. Do know that I appreciate the dialogue and that I hope the reason we get as feisty as we do is because we care how God's people should believe.

Unfortunately it feels like building the tower of Babel when we talk about such issues but I think if someone truly seeks Him in all that they do they might see that Icons are not idols and more importantly that believers (Saints) don't die.


The following three bible references (paraphrased) are pretty much how I survive the confusion and how I approach most of these issues.


Test everything. Don't accept any other spirit than the one that originally called you and work out your salvation with much fear and trembling.


May God bless you

[MahogonySnail]

I was trying to show you that outside of the bible the people that were being written to and about and that were writing, were actual real live people that did other things that weren't written down. The things they did and established continued on. There is continuity.

Not pre 200 AD it would seem. Scripture outdates the few (and they are only a few) people often quoted as "early church fathers", as if they personally represent the majority of Christianity at that time.

This is one of the side-effects of sola scriptura. You see great when you look at the bible but suddenly everything God established in the past 1500 years becomes hidden and it's only you and God and everyone else is dead.

Newsflash, they are dead. They've been dead for nearly 2000 years. Much of what you say "God" established in the past 1500 years, was established by various rules and doctrines of man, not God. Otherwise we would see continuity between scripture and present day traditions.

One of the great things about not being protestant any more is I don't have to mine the bible to justify whatever it is I think is right. I am no longer my own Pope. I can see that the Holy Spirit led the Church to make decisions and those decisions were as trustworthy as the canonization of the bible.

So by self-admission you state that you don't have to submit to what Scripture says? If you are not your own Pope, who is your Pope? The problem is you are unable to use the bible at all to justify your beliefs on this issue. It is remarkable that there is no continuity between what they canonized as scripture and the beliefs you hold. Besides, in 20 years of living as a Christian I personally have never had any desire to kiss an image of any dead saint who I don't know personally. Kissing images and things like this seems to be imposed religious tradition, not free-expression of your relationship with God. The churches of the first centuaries did not use images, just a Jesus fish symbol if that, as an icon not a symbol. Images were used by 400 AD for instruction but only in later centuries were they regarded as sacred then accepted for veneration by the R.C. church in later councils as late as the 787 and 1562.

You do realize that Jewish temples were adorned with images of events and people etc... That the first Christians considered themselves simply a true expression of Judaism. That both the OT Jews and the NT Christians were liturgical and sacramental all the way up until the late 1500s. That iconography was probably around when the disciples were still walking the earth.

The reason why images were removed from the churches in England in the protestant reformation was due to their use in the worship place that take the focus off Christ. There's nothing wrong with having a statue or image to represent something as a reminder. But the often held view that catholics merely use the images to remind them, is totally false. It is worship in every sense of the word.

St Thomas Aquinas stated. “[The Cross] it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of latria.” ..“we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ”

It was easy enough for the Israelites bull-calf to turn into an idol, it's easy enough for these things to become an idol.

[Ryan1976]

]Not pre 200 AD it would seem. Scripture outdates the few (and they are only a few) people often quoted as "early church fathers", as if they personally represent the majority of Christianity at that time

.

Start with St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp.

Newsflash, they are dead. They've been dead for nearly 2000 years. Much of what you say "God" established in the past 1500 years, was established by various rules and doctrines of man, not God. Otherwise we would see continuity between scripture and present day traditions.

Look East...

So by self-admission you state that you don't have to submit to what Scripture says?

No, I'm saying that I don't have to come up with my own interpretations. I can trust those that came before me. If I do find something novel, I can test it against what the Orthodox have believed all the way back to St. Ignatius/St. Polycar.

If you are not your own Pope, who is your Pope? The problem is you are unable to use the bible at all to justify your beliefs on this issue.

Well, I can't use the bible to justify the New Testament either but that was the point I was making earlier. Whenever we read about scripture in the New Testament it is, in context, referring to the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit led the council to choose the canon and I trust that the Holy Spirit led the council on many other issues that a lot of these modern day interpretations conflict with. Though the early Christians had Trinitarian beliefs (St. Ignatius calls Jesus, God) it wasn't until those later councils that we get most of our understanding of the Trinity.

It is remarkable that there is no continuity between what they canonized as scripture and the beliefs you hold.

This gets back to interpretation and trying to super-impose your traditions and teachings onto our religion instead of trying to understand what it is Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe.

Besides, in 20 years of living as a Christian I personally have never had any desire to kiss an image of any dead saint who I don't know personally. Kissing images and things like this seems to be imposed religious tradition, not free-expression of your relationship with God.

No one is forced to kiss an icon. If I don't, no one seems to notice. I never had the urge to kiss a picture either until I began to look into the lives of the Saints and found that their lives, especially those early early Saints, often put the scriptures into context.

The churches of the first centuaries did not use images

They had images in the Jewish temples. The Jews built shrines to the martyrs. The first Christians were Jews. There's continuity. Persecution definitely threw a cramp on their style (though not really where it counts). There are Orthodox Churches recently that were started where all they had was two sticks held together to make a cross. This isn't dogma. It's expression.

Images were used by 400 AD for instruction but only in later centuries were they regarded as sacred then accepted for veneration by the R.C. church in later councils as late as the 787 and 1562.

Ah, I think you're referring to the time when they wound up taking the icons away. In 400, if I remember, because people were using them incorrectly and this were this big debate. It was later restored but cannae remember why they restored them.. drawing blank. Will have to check that out.

The reason why images were removed from the churches in England in the protestant reformation was due to their use in the worship place that take the focus off Christ. There's nothing wrong with having a statue or image to represent something as a reminder. But the often held view that catholics merely use the images to remind them, is totally false. It is worship in every sense of the word.

Check out the whole Iconoclast history during that time. You paint a pretty sober scenario.

St Thomas Aquinas stated. “[The Cross] it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of latria.” ..“we give the adoration of latria to the image of Christ”

Interesting stuff. Look East.

It was easy enough for the Israelites bull-calf to turn into an idol, it's easy enough for these things to become an idol.

I agree. People can use religious objects inappropriately but if we apply this to the bible (which is the most abused religious object in the modern world) should we put those under lock and key too?

I'm not trying to defend inappropriate usage of religious objects. I'm not attacking Roman Catholics on this but that's because I'm not really aware of why they felt the use of statues etc. was okay. I'd have to get the skinny on all that stuff.

The main point I'm trying to explain here is that if used appropriately icons are not idols. We know they aren't actually Jesus trapped in a picture. We know that they might not even look exactly like Christ (though there are guidelines). That was my point about how everyone pictures Jesus in their own mind when they read the bible and you probably can't find two mind imagined Jesuses that looked alike (if we could actually see inside of the minds of others).

I for one am glad the Puritans didn't last long (in the form they took on in the early days). That's another interesting tid-bit. I was surprised when I discovered that it wasn't until the 1700s that Christians stopped making the sign of the cross. Those Puritans cleaned house and America lost a purty cool tradition. Though I do hear there are some protestants starting to bring back some of those traditions: making the sign of the cross, keeping Icons in their homes, and burning incense when they pray etc.

Okay. Late here. Rambling-zone.

Again, thanks for the dialogue. Interesting times we live in, eh?



God bless, Mahogany

[Ryan1976]

Ah, and this just came to mind.

It's not like we're kissing tons of pictures day in and day out. On whatever day you go to Church you will probably more often than not find pictures of the Apostles, Mary and Jesus. It's usually in your home where you might, haven gotten to know a particular Saint, wound up picking up an icon of him/her. A friend of mine said that you usually don't go looking for icons of the Saints. They just somehow find you.

I have to admit, I am always learning about new Saints and sometimes I don't really remember much about them. However, this isn't to diminish the Saints but to make sure you realize that God is at the center of our worship. Studying the lives of the Saints really does help put the scriptures into context because you hear them saying things that come straight out the bible but within a context of their given situation. So, you get to read about early early Christians (brothers and sisters) speaking and doing things that help bring the movement of the Holy Spirit into a historical context. You get to see how they lived what we read in the scriptures and, like Paul, serve as a good example of being someone we can imitate because it is Christ in them.

[MahogonySnail]

ok that sounds good, God bless you too.