Once again, the closing comments by these two priests are most excellent and balanced. The facets of one thing, bouncing light based on where you are when you see it.
@@johnc3979 _only_ carved? So the Hindu elephant man that a lot of American leftists put on their car dashboard, which is manufactured by pouring resin in a cast, is not an idol?
Love the podcast, and thank you so much for doing it. Are you aware after hour 1 of this episode and some others that there's literally an ad every 3 minutes?
It looks like the reason for that is because this video got (unfairly) hit with a copyright claim, so RUclips took over where and when to place ads in this video. I will submit an appeal and try to get the claim removed so I can take off the ads. Do you know what other episodes in particular had this?
The Hamburgerler is probably on a religious quest. He is, after all, stealing back what must be the heads of his relatives. He may be building an ossuary, which will work because those burgers don't corrupt.
I love hearing from other traditions. I could ask a number of questions, but this is a main thing for me. I've heard the "flag is venerated at baseball games" thing before. But no one in those places is trusting in the flag as a prop for devotion to the God of the universe. It is simple honor, veneration. When someone holds an icon as a means, particularly a necessary means, to deeper devotion, it *becomes* suspect, as we all know Jesus' exhortation about the purposes in our hearts for anything we do.
Obviously (and this follows pretty clearly from this episode), that's because a flag is not at all an image, a representation or a symbol of the God of the universe, so no one is venerating a flag the way they venerate an icon, like an image of Christ God, or of Mary, the mother of Christ God or carrying Christ God, or any other event or person from Christ's or Church's life, which were sanctified by God's presence and work. Also, there's no claim that an icon is a "necessary" mean for (deeper) devotion, but that it is a proper mean and that is should not be rejected as such.
1:23:51 yes. this. people have been told over and over. I like to say (and so far, nobody has corrected me, because I say it mainly to myself), that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father TO the Son", because I think the entire relationship of a father to a son, in the senses relevant to Christ, and possibly not to any one of our individual situations, consists in his teaching his son the spirit behind things. The son watches the father fix the sink, and wishes to be about his father's business. The father shows how to turn off the water, but also why, because that also applies to the toilet and, in even more general terms, the gas line to the stove and the Netflix subscription. The father shows how to wrench the drain, and if he forgets the spirit behind putting a towel or tray underneath before he does this, his son may still learn it if he is paying attention. The father wishes his son to be as he is, (insofar as he is perfect.) He wishes his son to be independent, to be able to make decisions for the right reason, which is to assent to the right spirit. But nobody has yet invited me to a council to compose a creed, nor would I recommend it.
As a Lutheran, this whole podcast sounds frustratingly in concord with the two Martins, and the Evangelical Confessions. (Although am I surprised one with Lithuanian heritage can riff on Luther's Catechisms? Sorry I don't have a quip for Father Stephen not-Andrew). Also, thanks and respect to all this; it's great learning more depth of context as well as everything else. *This is a request to slam us Lutherans (Luther, Schwartzerdt, Gerhard, Arndt, etc.) more, I feel left out.* Also you missed out on Gustav Adolf, the Lion of the North, with Gog of Magog, but there's still time. The largest discord I've heard is that one can know that the Saints who've died (like Sts Boniface, Ansgar, Vicelinus, Adalbert/Bruno, etc.) work in this world and guide/care for those under their care.
State Liturgy from the 1970's : Two all beef patties Special sauce Lettuce, cheese Pickles, onions On a Sesame seed Bun ....McDonald's Iconography was truely creepy.... Never was sure WHAT the Hamburgalur was. Let alone Grimace.
Tis good conversation John was about 91 Began to write ✍️ Be precise Soooooo many years contemplating with the Spirit In the beginning..... A story......
No, he means that the dragon being slayed there is a bad dragon, in contrast with "good dragons", as the Seraphs and the snakes in the rod of a Bishop.
There were plenty of church fathers who were against icons/images used during worship. Among early church theologians, iconoclastic tendencies were supported by theologians such as: Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius,Justin Martyr, Eusebius and Epiphanius. These are not arguments from silence. Also, the major biblical argument described here stems from explicit commands from God to make serpents/tabernacle, etc. Which is very different from current use of icons. This is one of the most condescending episodes I’ve ever listened to.
1) Tertullian was a Montanist, Origen was condemned as a heretic by the 5th Ecumenical Council, Eusebius of Caesarea was, minimally, a Semi-Arian. These are heretics, not Church Fathers. But even if you did successfully find six iconoclastic saints in the early church somewhere, you realize that wouldn't be a relevant argument from an Orthodox perspective, right? Let alone three heretics, a Platonist whose claim to sainthood in the Orthodox Church is wobbly, and two lesser-known Fathers with "iconoclastic tendencies." (St. Epiphanius, assuming that's who you meant, should be better known.) 2) As addressed in the episodes, "iconoclastic tendencies" is a way of saying that based on works written on completely unrelated topics, you detect elements that might be consistent with an iconoclastic point of view. That is less than an argument from silence. Those same comments are, in fact, consistent with a variety of positions. 3) As expressed in the last two episodes, condemnation of idolatry has nothing to do with iconoclasm. 4) What God commanded, as explained in this episode, is precisely how iconography is used today. We worship God the way he commanded us to, most of which commands are in the Old Testament. Segments of the West have chosen to replace the God of the Old Testament with the god of Plato out of a mix of distaste and anti-semitism. Iconography doesn't make sense with Plato's god. I think when people find our episodes condescending, it's mostly because they think they know the topic better than they do, and being humble enough to realize that they don't know what they're talking about can be really hard for people. Much easier to say, "Don't condescend to me, man! I'm an armchair expert!"
None of the men you mentioned condemned the use of religious imagery in all cases. They wrote against the way that religious imagery was being used in a pagan context. The thing that modern people just cannot seem to wrap their heads around is that for the first 300 years of the Church's existence - they were surrounded on a daily basis by idolatry. Real idolatry. As in, people using statues and altars and temples with religious ritual in an attempt to coerce demonic false gods to do their bidding for them. So when Origen is writing against the use of altars and temples, that's what he's talking about. That's what he's surrounded by. There were no Christian temples in Alexandria in the early 3rd century. He's attacking the common religion of his time - paganism - in a defense of Christianity. Origen despite his flaws was a brilliant scholar and I'd be willing to bet far more well read and intelligent than 99% of theologians alive today. He wasn't a dummy. He was well aware that Israel used an altar and a temple in proper, right religious worship of the true God in the Old Testament. He wasn't against that. And I think that becomes pretty obvious when you actually read Origen and don't just pick one or two passages completely out of context to try to win an argument. In fairness, there was one actual iconoclast in the first 3 centuries of Christianity. But there was only one, and unfortunately he had some heretical views which led him to de-convert from Christianity and join a heretical sect later in life. It's Tertullian. Tertullian is by far your best case for an early member of the church who was "against" iconography. I'm fairly confident in saying that he was the only one. He was way more extreme in his rejection of imagery than any of the other theologians you mentioned. But even he defended the use of iconography in the setting of the tabernacle of the Old Testament in his writings against Marcionism. So if the most extreme iconoclast of the first 300 years of Christianity who decided his views didn't even line up with Christianity later on in his life sees a place for the proper use of imagery in relation to the true God, I think we're pretty safe to come to the same conclusion.
@@Harryhausen4 Thank you for the pointed response. I'm definitely no expert in this (never claimed to be), my brother recently converted to EO and I'm trying to understand it better. Admittedly, I have been raised in and hold to the reformed tradition - so this is swimming upstream to say the least. 1 & 2). I suppose I should clarify the point in the episode I was initially responding to... one of the priests said there was no or scant (can't remember which, but very strongly worded) evidence to the early church not using icons. Which I found odd given the significant iconoclast controversy and early written evidence to the contrary. My statement was a pretty modest one, saying that there is evidence to the contrary and combined with a major church division on the issue, it's definitely not "less than an argument from silence". His statement seemed to lack nuance at best and I perceived it as overstating/misleading (condescending was probably the wrong term). 4) "We worship God the way he commanded us" Not sure where current practice of icon veneration (bowing and kissing images of saints) is commanded by God? Genuinely, I would like to know. Lastly, this may seem nit picky, but it probably led to my feeling of the priests being (probably unintentionally) misleading, but the Puritans definitely drank alcohol (in moderation) and danced (although with some restrictions). Much has been written on this and is easily verifiable. Then to hear the priests criticize Puritans for a position they didn't hold was irritating. Right or wrong, this probably put a skeptical lens on what they were saying which led to my quick (not well thought out) response. I have no ill will towards the priests, they seem like wonderful guys - just a little honest feedback. Anyway, thank you for responding. If you do have time to answer #4, that would be awesome. If not, no worries. Obviously, it is unlikely either one of us will move on this issue over posting in the comment section. Over a beer would be more effective! Either way, I believe we are brothers in Christ and will (by God's Grace) be together one day praising our God and our King! Alleluia!
99.999% of the Saints and great ascetics of the Church favoured the use of Icons. The Biblical prohibition is against IDOLS and the worship of false gods, context and understanding is everything. Most important of all is the Incarnation when the Second Person took flesh and entered into matter changed everything. I also used to hold to the protestant heresies and I feel i've found more holiness in Orthodoxy which understands the transcendental aspect of the Holy Trinity better then the more banal protestant sects who make God more domestic. Talk to your brother (and good for him!) and maybe his priest. Lastly I must say that this is the least condescending episodes I’ve ever listened to but it's good you're exploring other perspectives.
@@jondgilone of these speakers (priests?) also said there was no such thing as objective truth in this podcast - that's where I stopped and began reading comments, and TBH I don't think I'm going to continue listening. Without objective truth, belief in God crumbles. Jesus commanded his followers to seek the Truth, and I think that was for two reasons - first, that an understanding of the concept of truth leads you to conclude that God exists, and second, that the search for truth leads to refinement in understanding the world and then improving our condition. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone who says there's no objective truth would also "venerate" icons. The crux of the issue is: what's the difference between veneration and worship? And to answer that, one must examine what real life idolaters believe about what they are doing when they worship an idol - would they describe their actions as symbolic and veneration? Yes... the answer to that is yes. I know this personally because I've travelled and met people who worshipped idols, I've witnessed it personally, and I've asked them about it. They describe in _exactly_ the same ways the Orthodox do. And one last point, someone in a comment above said that iconoclasts are prideful and acting as armchair experts, in contrast with the humble Orthodox who are real experts... I do think they are real experts on many things, and I want to learn from them, which is why I'm here - but they are definitely the ones being prideful on the topic of icons. Pride blinds them, unfortunately. What's the cure for pride? Reality is. And that brings me back to Truth... No grasp on objective truth = blind to reality = pride and error. Thanks for reading my book 😅
![Lord of Spirits - Sons of God, Equal to the Angels [Ep. 4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wi-LjKt22iQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lord of Spirits - Sons of God, Equal to the Angels [Ep. 4]](/img/tr.png)
![Lord of Spirits - According to the order of Melchizedek [Ep. 27]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZpCtrFKFK0g/mqdefault.jpg)
Once again, the closing comments by these two priests are most excellent and balanced. The facets of one thing, bouncing light based on where you are when you see it.
Amen.
Much love.
This Danimal fellow seems like a good chap and a good sport. Thankful to be his friend!
Isaiah 6:8
“Also I heard the voice of Yahauh saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.”
I appreciate you brothers
Stepping out
Into
....
John listened
Considering
Spirit Holy
Helped him speak
Salvation in his every word
Extraordinary 🦅🦁🕊️✍️
A graven image is not the same as icon. Icon is about respect and reverence.
What are graven images about?
@@fusion9619 graven means carved . It's talking about worshipping idols. A picture or painting of a saint is ok. As long as your not worshipping it.
@@johnc3979 _only_ carved? So the Hindu elephant man that a lot of American leftists put on their car dashboard, which is manufactured by pouring resin in a cast, is not an idol?
Jeremiah 17:9 KJVS
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Love the podcast, and thank you so much for doing it. Are you aware after hour 1 of this episode and some others that there's literally an ad every 3 minutes?
It looks like the reason for that is because this video got (unfairly) hit with a copyright claim, so RUclips took over where and when to place ads in this video. I will submit an appeal and try to get the claim removed so I can take off the ads. Do you know what other episodes in particular had this?
The Hamburgerler is probably on a religious quest. He is, after all, stealing back what must be the heads of his relatives. He may be building an ossuary, which will work because those burgers don't corrupt.
This is so helpful. I still dont get it but it feels so close... :D
I love hearing from other traditions. I could ask a number of questions, but this is a main thing for me. I've heard the "flag is venerated at baseball games" thing before. But no one in those places is trusting in the flag as a prop for devotion to the God of the universe. It is simple honor, veneration. When someone holds an icon as a means, particularly a necessary means, to deeper devotion, it *becomes* suspect, as we all know Jesus' exhortation about the purposes in our hearts for anything we do.
Obviously (and this follows pretty clearly from this episode), that's because a flag is not at all an image, a representation or a symbol of the God of the universe, so no one is venerating a flag the way they venerate an icon, like an image of Christ God, or of Mary, the mother of Christ God or carrying Christ God, or any other event or person from Christ's or Church's life, which were sanctified by God's presence and work. Also, there's no claim that an icon is a "necessary" mean for (deeper) devotion, but that it is a proper mean and that is should not be rejected as such.
1:23:51 yes. this. people have been told over and over. I like to say (and so far, nobody has corrected me, because I say it mainly to myself), that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father TO the Son", because I think the entire relationship of a father to a son, in the senses relevant to Christ, and possibly not to any one of our individual situations, consists in his teaching his son the spirit behind things. The son watches the father fix the sink, and wishes to be about his father's business. The father shows how to turn off the water, but also why, because that also applies to the toilet and, in even more general terms, the gas line to the stove and the Netflix subscription. The father shows how to wrench the drain, and if he forgets the spirit behind putting a towel or tray underneath before he does this, his son may still learn it if he is paying attention. The father wishes his son to be as he is, (insofar as he is perfect.) He wishes his son to be independent, to be able to make decisions for the right reason, which is to assent to the right spirit. But nobody has yet invited me to a council to compose a creed, nor would I recommend it.
As a Lutheran, this whole podcast sounds frustratingly in concord with the two Martins, and the Evangelical Confessions. (Although am I surprised one with Lithuanian heritage can riff on Luther's Catechisms? Sorry I don't have a quip for Father Stephen not-Andrew). Also, thanks and respect to all this; it's great learning more depth of context as well as everything else.
*This is a request to slam us Lutherans (Luther, Schwartzerdt, Gerhard, Arndt, etc.) more, I feel left out.* Also you missed out on Gustav Adolf, the Lion of the North, with Gog of Magog, but there's still time.
The largest discord I've heard is that one can know that the Saints who've died (like Sts Boniface, Ansgar, Vicelinus, Adalbert/Bruno, etc.) work in this world and guide/care for those under their care.
"Goose Zeus riot....throw out the funeral bier / Goose Zeus riot, get those little idols out-of here"....
State Liturgy from the 1970's :
Two all beef patties
Special sauce
Lettuce, cheese
Pickles, onions
On a
Sesame seed
Bun
....McDonald's Iconography was truely creepy....
Never was sure WHAT the Hamburgalur was.
Let alone Grimace.
Tis good conversation
John was about 91
Began to write ✍️
Be precise
Soooooo many years contemplating with the Spirit
In the beginning.....
A story......
2:06:27
2:08:10
You cannot get even there without a bronze altar
And a perfect lamb
Of God laying there willingly
Waiting
There is ministering in the holy place
Table
Bread of his presence
Walking and lighting lamps as you walk
There is ministering to the people
In the outer court
There is ministering to God
In the Holy of Holies
I thought Zeus became a swan not a goose
Why is saint george slaying the dragon bad in icon????
No, he means that the dragon being slayed there is a bad dragon, in contrast with "good dragons", as the Seraphs and the snakes in the rod of a Bishop.
Dwell
Dwelling
Dwellings
🤔
John 17
,16
15
Abiding
❤️🦅
Have to ask God
🤔
Was Zuess a goose 🦆
Maybe I'll ask Paul
Peter
James
John
Mary
🤔
The church fathers
🤔
I wonder 🤔
Last days
Enemies of God are not giggling
They are focusing
44:55 UM ACKSHUALLY...
...it's 'CHAT-ull-hoo-yek', k thx bai
🦅
How to follow Him
🦅
🤔
You cannot get inside
Without the laver
Bronze bowl
Two guys
Riding their bikes
Just an FYI there are altars at Gobekli tepe and it's sister site.
Maybe you like it
Chuckle together
Maybe
😊
Hey ❤️
🦅
Trim
Then
Fruit 🍓
Title is ...image of the invisible
🤔
I think 🤔
My ....sense
Father
Son
Holy Spirit
Quiet
Watching
Observation
Observe ING
As we speak
A lot of fluffy stuff
😊
Seriously
I'm going to bed
There were plenty of church fathers who were against icons/images used during worship. Among early church theologians, iconoclastic tendencies were supported by theologians such as: Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius,Justin Martyr, Eusebius and Epiphanius. These are not arguments from silence.
Also, the major biblical argument described here stems from explicit commands from God to make serpents/tabernacle, etc. Which is very different from current use of icons. This is one of the most condescending episodes I’ve ever listened to.
1) Tertullian was a Montanist, Origen was condemned as a heretic by the 5th Ecumenical Council, Eusebius of Caesarea was, minimally, a Semi-Arian. These are heretics, not Church Fathers. But even if you did successfully find six iconoclastic saints in the early church somewhere, you realize that wouldn't be a relevant argument from an Orthodox perspective, right? Let alone three heretics, a Platonist whose claim to sainthood in the Orthodox Church is wobbly, and two lesser-known Fathers with "iconoclastic tendencies." (St. Epiphanius, assuming that's who you meant, should be better known.)
2) As addressed in the episodes, "iconoclastic tendencies" is a way of saying that based on works written on completely unrelated topics, you detect elements that might be consistent with an iconoclastic point of view. That is less than an argument from silence. Those same comments are, in fact, consistent with a variety of positions.
3) As expressed in the last two episodes, condemnation of idolatry has nothing to do with iconoclasm.
4) What God commanded, as explained in this episode, is precisely how iconography is used today. We worship God the way he commanded us to, most of which commands are in the Old Testament. Segments of the West have chosen to replace the God of the Old Testament with the god of Plato out of a mix of distaste and anti-semitism. Iconography doesn't make sense with Plato's god.
I think when people find our episodes condescending, it's mostly because they think they know the topic better than they do, and being humble enough to realize that they don't know what they're talking about can be really hard for people. Much easier to say, "Don't condescend to me, man! I'm an armchair expert!"
None of the men you mentioned condemned the use of religious imagery in all cases. They wrote against the way that religious imagery was being used in a pagan context. The thing that modern people just cannot seem to wrap their heads around is that for the first 300 years of the Church's existence - they were surrounded on a daily basis by idolatry. Real idolatry. As in, people using statues and altars and temples with religious ritual in an attempt to coerce demonic false gods to do their bidding for them.
So when Origen is writing against the use of altars and temples, that's what he's talking about. That's what he's surrounded by. There were no Christian temples in Alexandria in the early 3rd century. He's attacking the common religion of his time - paganism - in a defense of Christianity. Origen despite his flaws was a brilliant scholar and I'd be willing to bet far more well read and intelligent than 99% of theologians alive today. He wasn't a dummy. He was well aware that Israel used an altar and a temple in proper, right religious worship of the true God in the Old Testament. He wasn't against that. And I think that becomes pretty obvious when you actually read Origen and don't just pick one or two passages completely out of context to try to win an argument.
In fairness, there was one actual iconoclast in the first 3 centuries of Christianity. But there was only one, and unfortunately he had some heretical views which led him to de-convert from Christianity and join a heretical sect later in life. It's Tertullian. Tertullian is by far your best case for an early member of the church who was "against" iconography. I'm fairly confident in saying that he was the only one. He was way more extreme in his rejection of imagery than any of the other theologians you mentioned. But even he defended the use of iconography in the setting of the tabernacle of the Old Testament in his writings against Marcionism. So if the most extreme iconoclast of the first 300 years of Christianity who decided his views didn't even line up with Christianity later on in his life sees a place for the proper use of imagery in relation to the true God, I think we're pretty safe to come to the same conclusion.
@@Harryhausen4 Thank you for the pointed response. I'm definitely no expert in this (never claimed to be), my brother recently converted to EO and I'm trying to understand it better. Admittedly, I have been raised in and hold to the reformed tradition - so this is swimming upstream to say the least.
1 & 2). I suppose I should clarify the point in the episode I was initially responding to... one of the priests said there was no or scant (can't remember which, but very strongly worded) evidence to the early church not using icons. Which I found odd given the significant iconoclast controversy and early written evidence to the contrary. My statement was a pretty modest one, saying that there is evidence to the contrary and combined with a major church division on the issue, it's definitely not "less than an argument from silence". His statement seemed to lack nuance at best and I perceived it as overstating/misleading (condescending was probably the wrong term).
4) "We worship God the way he commanded us" Not sure where current practice of icon veneration (bowing and kissing images of saints) is commanded by God? Genuinely, I would like to know.
Lastly, this may seem nit picky, but it probably led to my feeling of the priests being (probably unintentionally) misleading, but the Puritans definitely drank alcohol (in moderation) and danced (although with some restrictions). Much has been written on this and is easily verifiable. Then to hear the priests criticize Puritans for a position they didn't hold was irritating. Right or wrong, this probably put a skeptical lens on what they were saying which led to my quick (not well thought out) response. I have no ill will towards the priests, they seem like wonderful guys - just a little honest feedback.
Anyway, thank you for responding. If you do have time to answer #4, that would be awesome. If not, no worries.
Obviously, it is unlikely either one of us will move on this issue over posting in the comment section. Over a beer would be more effective! Either way, I believe we are brothers in Christ and will (by God's Grace) be together one day praising our God and our King! Alleluia!
99.999% of the Saints and great ascetics of the Church favoured the use of Icons. The Biblical prohibition is against IDOLS and the worship of false gods, context and understanding is everything. Most important of all is the Incarnation when the Second Person took flesh and entered into matter changed everything.
I also used to hold to the protestant heresies and I feel i've found more holiness in Orthodoxy which understands the transcendental aspect of the Holy Trinity better then the more banal protestant sects who make God more domestic.
Talk to your brother (and good for him!) and maybe his priest.
Lastly I must say that this is the least condescending episodes I’ve ever listened to but it's good you're exploring other perspectives.
@@jondgilone of these speakers (priests?) also said there was no such thing as objective truth in this podcast - that's where I stopped and began reading comments, and TBH I don't think I'm going to continue listening. Without objective truth, belief in God crumbles. Jesus commanded his followers to seek the Truth, and I think that was for two reasons - first, that an understanding of the concept of truth leads you to conclude that God exists, and second, that the search for truth leads to refinement in understanding the world and then improving our condition. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone who says there's no objective truth would also "venerate" icons. The crux of the issue is: what's the difference between veneration and worship? And to answer that, one must examine what real life idolaters believe about what they are doing when they worship an idol - would they describe their actions as symbolic and veneration? Yes... the answer to that is yes. I know this personally because I've travelled and met people who worshipped idols, I've witnessed it personally, and I've asked them about it. They describe in _exactly_ the same ways the Orthodox do. And one last point, someone in a comment above said that iconoclasts are prideful and acting as armchair experts, in contrast with the humble Orthodox who are real experts... I do think they are real experts on many things, and I want to learn from them, which is why I'm here - but they are definitely the ones being prideful on the topic of icons. Pride blinds them, unfortunately. What's the cure for pride? Reality is. And that brings me back to Truth... No grasp on objective truth = blind to reality = pride and error.
Thanks for reading my book 😅