Good video. I would have added the issues with neoplatonism and origenism at 7th synod back to eusebius’ day and the arbitrary standard ortlund wants for written evidence in first three centuries undercuts own prot canon which has no support until st jerome
Lol and why should they follow the canon of st Jerome. He believed in relics, veneration of saints, the eucharist etc. According to reformed doctrine he would be an idolater
What we do know is that the Gospel attributed to Luke contains not one word about the painting or veneration of icons. Nor is there the slightest mention of it anywhere in the New Testament where a “Luke” is mentioned - or anywhere in the New Testament at all. Not one of the icons attributed to Luke is in a style remotely connected to the 1st century A.D. All are much, much later (and from various later times chronologically). And there is not one bit of scientific analysis dating any one of the number of icons attributed to Luke to the 1st century.
Don’t worry, I stayed to the end and watched the whole thing. This is great to listen to whilst driving, drawing, walking, etc. The long format for this video is great.
I haven’t watched the whole video yet so I’m not sure if you address this, but it’s interesting that Ortlund and company don’t really engage with the arguments made by saints like John of Damascus, they just try to find the earliest sources and interpret them through a Protestant lens. That’s because the don’t have any continuity with the early church. They treat these sources the same way they treat the Bible - archeologically. They have to reconstruct a whole system from a few fragments, instead of accepting the deposit of faith as it was handled down.
Was the jump from the Coptic church to Orthodoxy huge? I converted from Protestantism and I don't think I had a huge leap as I had been non-practicing for a while.
@@DeaconYeabkal Then it was a bigger jump? I'm genuinely interested in hearing different stories. I went from being a bass player in a worship band to having acappella music.
Hey David, I watched until the very end and I am more than impressed by your scholarship in this video. As the title says, this video has STRENGTHENED my convictions in the veneration of icons and of the decisions and anathemas passed at the holy, great, and ecumenical synod of Nicaea II. May the All Mighty Triune God bless you and all your work abundantly, God bless you David☦️❤️🔥☦️
Fantastic video. This has got to be one of the most comprehensive and extensive breakdowns out there on the subject. As a long time extremely involved and committed protestant, I very much appreciate the thoroughness.
It is sad to see that some contemporary Orthodox scholars will concede to the West when it comes to icon veneration being apostolic. Especially when there is such a plethora of evidence against it.
He has just provided evidence for the veneration of icons and the most damning being the acts of John the fact that gnostics attested to christian veneration being bad means it was wide spread
David, just watching this now. Will comment as I am able. Just a first note on Origen, the comments about Origen around 25:00 reveal a lack of having read the broader context. See my response to Truglia; this is the first point I addressed there. For Origen, Christian altars, statues, etc. are metaphorical. He is making the opposite point that you are making. While you might discount Origen on the grounds that he is a heretic, the fact remains that he is describing Christian worship in his time. This historical testimony cannot be dismissed. It is unfathomable that Origen would maintain that Christians have rejected the cultic use of images if in fact the early Christians venerated images in the way Nicaea II claims.
Hey Gavin the same books says that there are altars in Churches where the Eucharistic services are held and the broader context would be the alexandrian liturgy and Clement of alexandria speaks of that in the pre communion anaphora. Also you cited sources that also speak of monastic vows and communities which for some reason you don't beleive are legitimate. Feel free to keep moving the goalpost where you like.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." [1 John 2:19] + "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." [2 Thessalonians 3:6] ☦
I bet that the testimonies of the early 2nd century Acts of John, as well as Tertullian, Methodius, the Nazareth Grotto inscription, and Eusebius were all speaking metaphorically too.
The Goalpost has been stablished since Moses received the Law from God thousands of years ago. Changing the word "worship" for "veneration" would be changing the goalpost. These are the same thing: bowing down and serving graven images... *Exodus 20* 4 Thou 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: 5 *Thou 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;
@@JohnVILXIII Then why did the Early Christians make images? Do you know better than those that gave you the scriptures you misunderstand? God gave this law to the Israelites for their early tendencies of falling into idolatry and even without images they did. We do not worship images or serve images. You are made in the Image of God, is this a graven image? You honour your mother and father, but you do not worship them. This is a really tired argument.
@@mariorizkallah5383 -Then why did the Early Christians make images?- What early Christians are you talking about? Are those Christians which disobey God’s Commandments? Just Because someone call himself "Christian" it does not make him a christian. They should believe and obey God’s Word. That’s what a Christian does... -Do you know better than those that gave you the scriptures you misunderstand?- No. No one knows better than God, his apostles and his prophets. Do you know better than them? -God gave this law to the Israelites for their early tendencies of falling into idolatry and even without images they did.- They made graven images and bowed down before them, such as the golden calf, Moloch, Renfan, etc. That’s call idolatry -We do not worship images or serve images.- Orthodox bow down before graven images, kiss them and "venerate" them. You are disobeying the 2nd commandment. This is idolatry and is sinful and wicked. -You are made in the Image of God, is this a graven image?- Im not a graven image and no one should worship me, neither no one does. What’s your argument? -You honour your mother and father, but you do not worship them.- Correct. I don’t bow down before my mother and father like they were God but I honour and respect them to be a good Son. -This is a really tired argument.- There is no argument. Obey God’s Commandment. Repent from your idolatry...
1:15:08 Epiphanius is the best father to prove iconodulia is early and the majority position. Those quotes backfires at the neo-iconoclasts (I bet soon they will deny their authenticity). Its good to remember that Epiphanius was a JEWISH (romaniotes) convert. And jews had a more scrupulous behaviour toward images. And it is no problem deniyng something that our saint have said, we do that with Augustine too. The saints were not perfect in all they said.
Suan from Intellectual Catholicism (even though he's Catholic) had an amazing point on that letter, namely, that in the original Greek version of Epiphanius' letter, the "image" on the curtain is actually an image of a Pagan god! Therefore, Epiphanius was only an "iconoclast" in that case against the Pagan images, especially being located in the church!
54:57 this was a very strong point. I hadn’t thought of it this way. Words are symbols that predicate of realities beyond them just as icons, if verse are able to be venerated images by necessity would also be because they are functionally the same thing. My favorite part of this presentation. Thank you for this wealth of information
Thank you! You have helped me to further complete my thoughts in different areas relating to this topic! I agree on many points and I think (as a transitioning baptist) that the ultimate blockade for protestants regarding this issue lies at the core of their doctrine that rejects any form of Church authority being part of the church from the beginning! (SEE JOHN 20:22-23 apostles are given authority to FORGIVE SINS BY JESUS! And SEE ACTS 15, the early counsel of the church making decisions!)
@@Wilkins325 because the use of the object is implied in its creation. It's like separating a book existing, then adding extra demands for proof it was read.
@@Wilkins325 the point is your people claimed there is none whatsoever and there are numerous, no ancient Church looks even remotely close to a protestant fake church they all resemble either antiochian or coptic style churches
@@Cahrub No. People is people. I’m not a graven image neither you are. You can honour people, not bowing down before and praying to them like they were God. That would be idolatry. And that’s what you do with your "icons" which are graven images...
@@JohnVILXIII hope you are at least consistent and have no pictures in your house. Bowing is not idolatry. People bow to each other all over the world. Get out of your western headspace and experience some other cultures.
Hello everyone, that video was the best and very clear with all this evidence. I hope the protestants rethink again about images, saints, etc and enjoy the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
If I may add this less known indirect testimony to the list : at the end of the Vth century, the bishop Serenus of Marseille (South of Gaul) went angry against his own laymen and broke all icons in his diocese that people were venerating (he thought they were "adoring the paint"). It made such a scandal that it created a schism, and that Pope St Gregory had to write Serenus to put back icons into the churches (even though Gregory makes no distinction, it seems, between "adoration" and "veneration" and says images are okay only for instruction/didactic purposes). In his Letter 90 to Serenus of Marseille (Book IX of the Registered Letters), Pope St Gregory reports : 'It has been said to me that in breaking those images you have scandalized your flock so much that the majority of the latter has separated itself from your communion.' Pope St Gregory thinks images should not be bowed down to (he thinks only the Holy Trinity should be bowed down to), but thinks they have their place in the Church for instruction (but the reasoning of Gregory here is not consistent : he says adoring images is against the Scriptures, identifying veneration of icons and adoration, but still thinks making such images is okay, whereas the second commandment of the Decalogue says idols are not to be made nor worshipped ; if icons are idols they should not be even made, if they are not, then bowing down to them in respect is not "adoration").
As a Roman Catholic I thought this was the best critique of Gavin Ortlund's video. I appreciated lots of great points from the Catholic rebuttals (sufficient to well and truly discredit Ortlund's argument) but I agree with yours, overall, more than theirs, especially the way you handled Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Like you I don't think there was any development, but rather veneration was there from the time of the Apostles and so historically present during the early Church right up to the time of the seventh ecumenical council. Thanks
The Roman Catholic Churches, do not regard, Icons, and or statues as a development. The RCC, defended Icons, and Pope St. Gregory III, fought iconoclasm. The RCC like Orthodox Church, venerate Icons. The RCC accepts the 7th Ecumenical Council.
They haven’t debunked Gavin at all but agree it as a development and since Nicea 2 needed forgeries to claim this practice as apostolic it takes all validity from them
I’m Catholic and I thank you for this! There is a huge difference between the proper use of religious imagery, worship of these images, and outright idolatry. Both Catholic and Orthodox stand falsely accused and we are innocent. It’s hard to explain to Protestants the difference between worship and veneration or between latria and dulia. Our faiths are far older than theirs and both Catholic and Orthodox had to teach the mostly illiterate faithful via statue, icon, or other religious art.
Protestant faiths aren't "newer". They've always focused on scripture being the ultimate authority over man made traditions. The New Testament scripture which is older than the "Roman Catholic faith"
@@ninjason57in fact, no. you guys are just making new interpretations of the bible that even among yourselves is uncertain. sola fide is super unhistorical, practically a new doctrine...
@@ninjason57 Scripture isn't self-interpreting, hence your thousands of sects. You need a normative authority to interpret the text. That authority is the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ. Christ gave authority to His Apostles to rule the Church and their authority to teach was passed down to the bishops they appointed and the priests under them. Its been continuing like this for centuries and millennia. This is Apostolic Succession.
That passage from Irenaeus was about misleading people, not about honoring or dishonoring someone through the use of an image. The final sentences of that passage: "In like manner do these persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma." And the sentences that preceded it: "Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth." The notion that this is about honor/dishonor via images is very contrived.
I think you made an excellent case that icon veneration was a Christian practice prior to the 6th and 7th centuries (by at least 200-300 years), contra Ortlund and the scholars he appeals to. I am wondering about something, though. If this was such a widespread practice, why do so many of these Church fathers and figures appeal to the example of images of emperors in their arguments rather than appealing to their icons and how veneration passes to their prototypes? Is it because their audience wasn't always or all Christians? Is it because the images of emperors (and venerating or dishonoring them) were just so ubiquitous and therefore more well-known to everyone?
Hello David, completely unrelated to this video but.. I have just come across your channel and see that you are an Orthodox Christian Turk. Is that correct? I am 1/3 Turkish from my mother's side, but can't really speak a lot of Turkish, although I would love to learn it. I figured that, in order to learn Turkish, I would ideally find Turkish content I am interested in. Currently my biggest areas of interest are philosophy and theology, especially concerning Orthodox Christianity. Are there any Turkish works, books, authors, youtubers or what not, that talk about philosophy, theology and Orthodox Christianity, that you could recommend by any chance? I don't speak a lot myself, but I understand and can comprehend more than I speak, and since the interest is there, it doesn't have to be complete beginner level. I am basically interested in any intermediate content about philosophy and theology in Turkish. Recommendations would be appreciated!
Canon 36 of Elvira has no strength. St. Nektarios of Aegina says, "a council against images was convened in Illiberis (Granada), Spain, in 305-306… As for this ban, those who deal with related matters attribute it to the persecution led by Diocletian, during which those persecuting the Christians would enter their assemblies and destroy and defile the images. Seeing this destruction and dishonor, the council prohibited both the making and veneration of images."
@@internautaoriginal9951 the point was that the images weren't prohibited for idolatrous reasons, but in order to protect them from abuse was the canon created. Such as when the barabarians sacked a Christian city, and took up residence in a church. While in the church they had orgies and got drunk, and one night they fired an arrow at an Icon and it began to bleed. The next day they were removed from the church and destroyed.
@@TheForbiddenLean That story is fake, how an icon began to bleed ? It sound like a demonic possession, please give me a source I can trust. Icon veneration is not biblical, he gave an example the ark of the covenant which is the dwelling place of God. Since Jesus full fills the tabernacle he’s the Ark, the Temple and the perfect sacrifice we don’t need this images anymore, he debunked his own argument.
A sincere question: by declaring anathema (and therefore damnation) against all who do not venerate icons doesn't this veneration become a requirement for salvation? If so, why is this requirement of icon veneration not mentioned in the preaching of the apostles in the Book of Acts? How is it that thousands came to Christ through this preaching without any such veneration being preached or practiced? How is this not a different gospel than preached by Paul, who's gospel made no mention of venerating icons?
Anathema is the most extreme sanction that the Orthodox Church can take against a member of the Church for wrong doing. An anathema is a complete separation, an expulsion, from the Church. The Orthodox Church distinguishes between excommunication, that is "separation from the communion of the Church", and other penances and anathema. Under excommunication a person remains a member of the Church even though his or her participation in its mystical life, particularly communion, is restricted until the repentance of the one under excommunication. Whereas those under anathema are considered to be completely separated from the Church until repentance. The two principal causes for which a person may be anathematized are heresy and schism. Anathematization is used by the Church only as a last resort, and must always be preceded by pastoral attempts to reason with the offender to bring about his restoration to the faith. orthodoxwiki.org/Anathema#:~:text=An%20anathema%20is%20a%20complete,an%20expulsion%2C%20from%20the%20Church.
JY here, Excellent video and break down. I think the argumentation from History is another thing they ignore and your video does great job breaking it down.
Perhaps Eusebius' letter to Constantia (the sister of Constantine the Great) may be helpful. Constantia requested that Eusebius (the church historian who authored The Church History) send her an image of Christ, and Eusebius wrote her the following response. I quote a translation of it here, at least the full of what survives to this day: Translation by Cyril Mango, from The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453 (1972, rep. 1986), p. 16-18. Letter from Eusebius of Caesaria (circa 260-399 AD) to Constantia. [I marked notable portions in bold.] "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears His essential characteristics, or the one which He took up for our sake when He assumed the form of a servant? … Granted, He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. … Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He-the God, Logos-was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspect of His Kingdom, He showed on the mount that nature which surpasses the human one-when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who, then, would be able to represent by means of dead colors and inanimate delineations (skiagraphiai) the glistening, flashing radiance of such dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him in this guise and fell on their faces, thus admitting that they could not withstand the sight? If, therefore, His incarnate form possessed such power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I say of the time when He put off mortality and washed off corruption, when He changed the form of the servant into the glory of the Lord God… ? … How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form-if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence-unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything… ? For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us. But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of His form transformed into that of God, but that of the mortal flesh before its transformation, can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone? Once- I do not know how-a woman brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the guise of philosophers and let fall the statement that they were Paul and the Saviour-I have no means of saying where she had had this from or learned such a thing. With the view that neither she nor others might be given offence, I took it away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, lest we appear, like idol worshippers, to carry our God around in an image. I note that Paul instructs all of us not to cling any more to things of the flesh; for, he says, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. It is said that Simon the sorcerer is worshipped by godless heretics painted in lifeless material. I have also seen myself the man who bears the name of madness57 [painted] on an image and escorted by Manichees. To us, however, such things are forbidden. For in confessing the Lord God, Our Saviour, we make ready to see Him as God, and we ourselves cleanse our hearts that we may see Him after we have been cleansed… [Footnote] 57 “the man who bears the name of madness” is Mani the founder of Manichaeism. [Mani is the heretic after whom Manichaeism, a form of gnosticism, is named. Eusebius talks about and condemns his heresy in "The Church History", book 7, chapter 31.] It is very notable to me that this was written in the fourth century, where it was observed by Eusebius that the use of images was "banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?" I bring this up because it seems to me that Christians who are lured to the Orthodox or Catholic church have this notion that they are somehow getting in touch with the ancient and original Christianity, but from the looks of this letter from Eusebius, it looks like the original Christianity actually took the Bible's commandments about not making images and not venerating them very seriously. It looks like what is being passed off as a historic Christianity is actually Christianity that has strayed from its roots. Consider this passage from History of Eastern Christianity about the Church of the East: Then suddenly came the age of re-discovery1 of their little community as a revelation to a bewildered world. The story started with a certain Claude James Rich, then Resident of the British East lndia Company in Baghdad, who was not a man of religion but happened to he highly cultured and possessed of a very keen interest in archaeology. He visited the ancient site of the Biblical city of Nineveh in 1820, and his report2 on the area excited all manner of circles, both scholarly and missionary, in England and America. At long last he revealed to the English-speaking races the astounding facts about the Assyrians, who still conversed in a language similar to that spoken by Jesus and the Apostles and whose peculiar form of Christianity called for study and sympathy. A systematic archaeological exploration was commenced by A. H. Layard.3 On the religious side, however, the Nestorians were evidently and traditionally anti-popish and had neither icons nor crucifixes in their churches, only a simple and symbolic Cross. Their attitude towards the Virgin Mary was much akin to Protestant conceptions. Could they be the ancient ‘Protestants of the East’? Hence ensued a deluge of missions and Protestant missionaries to those forlorn sons of a historic church in their Godforsaken abodes. The Church of the East split from the Great Church (a.k.a. the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" prior to any major schism) at the council of Ephesus in 431 AD, over Nestorius (patriarch of Constantinople) being falsely condemned and excommunicated for a heresy he didn't teach, with Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch of Alexandria) prosecuting him with a misrepresentation of his teaching, accusing him of teaching that there were two Christs, one human and one divine, because Nestorius taught that Mary ought to be called the Christotokos (the "mother of Christ") rather than Theotokos ("mother of God"). (See Know the Creeds and Councils, Chapter 3, Council of Ephesus.) From that time on, Nestorius was known as a heretic in the west, but as a saint in the east: Mar Nestor. My point in quoting Eusebius and this portion about the Church of the East is that it shows that the image venerating sects of Christianity are not representing some sort of continuity with early historic Christianity, the very thing that Protestant converts to Eastern Orthodoxy find appealing. Rather, image veneration appear to represent a deviation from what the church originally practiced for at least its first four centuries, as confirmed by these two witnesses-Eusebius, and the Church of the East-I can't say it better than Eusebius said it, so I'll quote him again: can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?
You realize that this letter is was first mentioned in during the Iconoclastic council of Hieria in 754? And it almost completely contradicts his positive mentions of holy images in his book church history. You are quoting what is probably a forgery my guy
You talked about how Origen says "we have altars, temples and statues", but I've heard that they are allegories for Christian virtues, not actual altars, temples and statues. Thoughts?
Enjoying your video. About the mezuzah stuff, I found the article on chabad you used. I think you tried to link kissing the mezuzah to 1st century practices but so far all I see is placing hand on it. Rabbi Isaac Luria, who suggested kissing it, was from 16th century. Perhaps the eastern Orthodox influenced him. But it was not entirely correct to say "this veneration" (i.e. the kissing) is a first century practice. I will keep watching
On the topic of the healing statue referencing the woman who was healed by touching the fringe of Christ's cloak (Luke 8), this is a fulfilled prophecy from Malachi 4:2. "Healing in His wings, the word here for "wings" can also be translated as "fringe", and the fringe of Jewish cloaks we're called tzitzit. The word for the fringe of the cloak and wings were very closely related. So Christ did have healing in His wings!
I'm Brazilian. This is so funny, man! Hear my testimony. My wife was hearing a protestant pastor. He said that the early christian were so afraid of doing idolatry that they even prevented themselvs of PAINTING THE BRICKS OF THEIR CHURCHES!!! Man! When I heard that, I went crazy! I said to myself, "christians would take the body of those who were martyerd to venerate them, and they were afraid of painting their wall?!" COME ON!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Great video! As it was declared after the ichonomachia iconography is the book of the illiterate when the majority was illiterate they are for us to remember! The icons are not idols! Greetings from Athens Greece
@@internautaoriginal9951 icons are not idols iniconic art is part of other creeds but not in Greek Orthodox Christianity. I will only say the following no religion can exist without its historical context. Transgressions are done in every era and all scripture has been interpreted accordingly. Yet iconography is a major part of Orthodox Christians in particular. We remember through them. The Trinity can be explained through the miracle of St Spyridon in the ecumenical summit of 325 AD where the Trinity presented itself with the miracle of the ceramic tile. Greek people always had a yearning for piety. In ancient Greek writings there is evidence of Christianity called the Psygms. Trust me when we attend church very few bother with the icons they get encased in the words and the ritual. Now how is religion taught in every school in my country. Elementary deals with the story the parables etc Middle school elaborates on the faith and all other religions Abrahamic and not. High-school answers the deeper questions and those six years lessons are done by theologians. Bear in mind that we consider the Jesuit oath to be a negative thing as many other oaths regarding infidels and their demise. Icons are not the problem!
Hello, The Roman Catholic Churches, do not regard, Icons, and or statues as a development. The RCC, defended Icons, and Pope St. Gregory III, fought iconoclasm. The RCC like Orthodox Church, venerate Icons. The RCC accepts the 7th Ecumenical Council. Luke was also the first to make an Icon.
@@ScroopGroop ... because it clearly distinguishes believers from infidels. Icons are stumbling block to infidels and are placed by the Holy Spirit to wall off the Church from the heretics.
@@johnnyd2383 that’s the purpose of them? Or is it for the parishioners veneration to be passed on to the prototype? Also scripture is weirdly clear about not placing stumbling blocks so it seems wildly out of character the Holy Spirit saw it fit to leave it completely absent from scripture, and allowed for confusion for 800 years before finally sorting that one out.
@@ScroopGroop They are multipurpose and are venerated by all faithful, laity and clergy alike. Those who walk in the darkness are stumbling all the time - John 11, 9-10. You want to reverse-engineer Church's manual called Bible.? Good luck with that.! You can immediately think of starting your own private business, call it a "church" preach tithe and start collecting big $$$. That is called Protestantism. Best marketing move that will help you lure more ppl in your business would be promising them "eternal salvation" as soon as they remit first payment.
43:00 you say that Turtullian's argument that some images are okay is incorrect. I respectfully disagree. It is a valid argument. God's command to build His arc and include representations of cherubic angels on it is all within God's right to do that. As a holy God who is pure good, pure love, pure power, pure knowledge, pure morality, etc., He is the judge of what is right. He can command Canaanite women and children to be murdered and retain His goodness and holiness. That one act did not confer "double 0" status to the Jews and give them a license to kill whomever they wished without incurring the judgment of God. God's allowing His sanctuary and arc on earth to mirror that which is taking place in the heavenlies does not grant us license to then make icons, statues, or likenesses of other angels or saints at our own discretion.
Wait so this appeals to the Gelasian Decree as correct in its findings? I've talked to an Orthodox priest who thought the Protoevangelium of James is an authoritative document, is that not considered to be true among Orthodox Christians?
This is going to fly over most people's heads because they simply havent thouht much about the incarnation and it's implications and how God interacts with the world. Man these guys will have a tough time against educated muslims lol. Pray for them.
Paul about Grey Areas: 1 Cor 8:9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
Also when we are protected in the Name of Jesus or The Blood of Jesus is like icons? I went recently to Greece to cisit also Corinth and the guide-archeologist said to us that the oldest churches buildings on Greece are from the III-IVth century and the Apostle Paul dint not build a christian church (building) the first churches are Byzantines?
At 28:25 you called Tertullian a father, I assume that was a mistake? Separately from that, I'm seeing in your comments around 31:00 a tendency that's very common in Eastern Orthodox, which is the love of the Ad Hominem. You're attacking Tertullian's (alleged) character, as if people liking him or his alleged belligerence is somehow indicative of whether he's right. If you're going to bring up other logical fallacies, make sure you're not guilty of that yourself. Or, if it's not Ad Hominem, it's just an unprovoked attack. Keep in mind Jude 9. Satan is the accuser.
Origen, in Contra Celsum Book VIII, explicitly describes the altars, statues, and temples of Christians as being not physically crafted out of material. Read chapters 17-19 for the proper context out of which chapter 20 must be quoted. To say that chapter 20 is evidence of physical/material altars, statues, and temples is nonsense when the passage is read in context.
Except Origen is quite clear in his second homily on the Book of Joshua that we not only have physical altars but that we also have priests and levites in the form of the Presbyterate and the diaconate. Furthermore, Origen even says in his second homily on Joshua that we no longer offer bulls and calves upon those altars but that those same altars are sanctified by the blood of Christ for the Eucharistic offering of bread and wine. If you think Origen is being literal that we don’t have any physical altars then you will have to argue that Origen is being inconsistent in the physical nature of the Eucharist and it’s ties to the Old Testament system of sacrifices.
@@justin_messer Perhaps you meant to cite something else -- I found no mention of the diaconate in Homily 2. "When, indeed, you see nations enter into the faith, churches raised up, altars sprinkled not with the flowing blood of beasts but consecrated with the 'precious blood of Christ'; when you see priests and Levites ministering not 'the blood of bulls and goats' but the Word of God through the grace of the Holy Spirit, then say that Jesus received and retained the leadership after Moses--not Jesus the son of Nun, but Jesus the Son of God." I am also unaware of any sprinkling of the Eucharist to consecrate an altar in Orthodox praxis. Let me know if I'm wrong on that. Barring that, the altar that is consecrated must be within the communicant.
@@k98killer except that’s not what I said. I said that the blood of Christ sanctifies our altars for the expressed purpose of making the Eucharistic sacrifice. Not only that but Origen makes explicit reference to the fact that priests AND levites attend these altars in the modern day. Who are the levites and priests but the priests sbd deacons? Literally the modern deacon fulfills the function of the levites by attending to and assisting the presbyters on their ministering.
@@justin_messer except that's not what Origen said: he said "consecrated", not "sanctified". It doesn't matter what you said except insofar as you ascribed it erroneously to Origen. Anyway, I get what you're saying about the diaconite being the Levites. I yet contend that nothing in that homily necessitates physical altars in contravention of the symbolic altars he explicitly described in the chapters I cited. My point still stands that the original use of chapter 20 was out of context and therefore invalid. It's a minor point not really worth further time arguing over. It would not be unmanly to concede it.
@@k98killer sanctification and consecration are the same thing. It is the act of setting it apart and making it Holy. One entails the other. This is just useless nitpicking and grasping at straws. If Origen is arguing that there are only spiritual priests and spiritual altars, ie that the only priests and altars that exist are the body of believers and the altars their souls, then who are the spiritual levites? Since the function of the levites is to assist the priests in the temple ministries.
@@mariorizkallah5383 what was the Holy Spirit's argument for this? And what ecumenical council decided that Origen was not a saint despite suffering torture and subsequent death from his wounds for Christ?
The icons are not venerated. It's the Saint whom the icon depicts who's being venerated (loved) by fellow Christians. "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (John 13:34 KJV)"
Gavin Ortlund convinced me on youtube that dulia of icons was not normative in the early church or even permitted. It is an accretion, which he asserts is then mandated at the 7th ecumenical Council eg venerate icons or be anathema! Wow...what happened to the Gospel? If I don't kiss pictures of the saints I'm going to hell? That seems to be the assertion of the 7th ecumenical Council. Its a huge problem. Gavin Ortlund on icons. Check it out.
Instead of having shallow approach to the topic, try to get deeper into the relation of Lord's incarnation and His deifying of the entire material world by taking a flesh upon Himself. Make sure there are no Gnostic underlying causes of your resentment towards anything material and remember manifestations of the God through the matter in the Bible. Read theology of the 7th Ecumenical Council as many times as necessary until it eventually sink in. Remember - very same Holy Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church that is prescribing use of icons has produced Bible as you know it. You can't in one case say it is right and in the other it is wrong... that would be book case of hypocrisy.
The exact same thing could be said of the Trinity. The Trinity was also not normative. As well as the CANON OF SCRIPTURE. There was no normative canon of scripture until many centuries after Christ.
I question the argument of icon usage as worship to God through the practice of veneration. Exodus 20:4-6 (ESV): 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, 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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. Not only does God condemn carving images of those in heaven, but there is not a single Bible passage that instructs believers to venerate
Read Deuteronomy 4, 15-19 where it is explained as to why 2nd commandment was given. Ever since Lord incarnated, He has become "visible image (icon) of the invisible God".
Again this draws conclusions from silence, the burden of proof is on the EO for claiming apostolic origin with no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is not on the person positing the lack of prescription as a concern.
@@johnnyd2383 I mean that’s simply an untrue assertion. All evidence if ever been presented is spurious at best, forgeries at worst, and completely non existent in most scenarios
This isn’t a criticism of the entire video, but I did notice that the way you treat Origen’s statements about statues in Contra Celsum doesn’t take into account the context, where he seems to make it clear that he is not talking about physical statues (or even altars, for that matter). Shortly before the part you quoted, for example, Origen says (Chapters 17-18), “[W]e regard the spirit of every good man as an altar from which arises an incense which is truly and spiritually sweet-smelling, namely, the prayers ascending from a pure conscience. . . . And the statues . . . [are] the virtues. In all those, then, who plant and cultivate . . . virtues, these excellences are their statues they raise . . . And again, they who ‘put off the old man with his deeds[‘] . . . do raise within themselves a statue . . . And everyone who imitates Him according to his ability does by this very endeavor raise a statue according to the image of the Creator, for in the contemplation of God with a pure heart they become imitators of Him. And, in general, we see that all Christians strive to raise altars and statues as we have described them, and these not of a lifeless and senseless kind . . . Let any one, therefore, who chooses to compare the altars which I have described with those spoken of by Celsus, and the images in the souls of those who worship the Most High God with the statues of Pheidias, Polycletus, and such like, and he will clearly perceive, that while the latter are lifeless things, and subject to the ravages of time, the former abide in the immortal spirit.” In other words, Origen seems to be saying here that the “statues” which Christians raise are not physical statues but rather are virtues in the soul. So, the quote doesn't seem to work in quite the way you suggest in the video. Maybe you could clarify?
Origin was a Gnostic, it doesn't mean that he's wrong about the metaphysical interpretation, but that's not primarily how a Christian would see it. A Christian would say the metaphorical meaning is only possible because of the historical one. That's why right after quoting Origin, David mentioned the Eucharist.
The civil war in the Eastern Roman Empire that went on about a century, is evidence enough about the use of icons and their veneration in the first centuries of the Church.
Why don’t we see ancient Jews venerating icons of the patriarchs and prophets? Would it have been acceptable to the Lord to have an icon of Moses in the homes of the Jews for private prayer? Or of Abraham? Or, is icon veneration as practiced in Orthodoxy a Greek innovation?
We do see the Hebrews venerating Images. You died if you didn't venerate the Ark. You abased yourself when in front of the Temple, which is an image of the Heavenly Worship. The Preincarnational Christians were not iconophobes.
We see icons and prostrations in these verses as worship to God through Holy Objects. On the Ark - Exodus 25:18-22 On the curtains of the Tabernacle exodus 26:1 On the Veil of the Holy of Holies Exodus 26:31 Two Huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary 1 Kings 6:23 Icons on the Walls 1 Kings 6:29 The Doors 1 Kings 6:32 furnishings 1 Kings 7:29,36 David bowing and having the Temple decorated 1 Chronicles 29
Pentru că în Vechiul Testament Dumnezeu nu putea fi reprezentat prin imagine, dar după întruparea Lui Hristos, intrarea Lui în istorie, da, El putea fi reprezentat, așa cum l-au văzut oamenii care au trăit în vremea aceea.
@@ScroopGroop It may be too subtle for the depth of your hat, but in every Saint Christ lives and thus by making an icon of the Saint Christ is not put aside.
@@johnnyd2383 can we not respond with backhanded remarks? I’m positing that the EO position makes dogma out of assumption and silence, and I’m met with not substance, or commentary, only insults about how I’m too dumb to understand something necessary for my salvation? Did Christ come only for those capable incredible philosophical prowess, who also happen to sniff out the right institution to submit one’s conscience to? Spare me a response if all you plan on doing is continuing to sling baseless insults.
@@ScroopGroop There are multiple reasons for one to have veil over one's face that is blinding one. Pride is the chief of all reasons. Since unhappy drunken German monk with his heresies elevated every of his followers to the throne of the Pope, making them all infallible in matters of faith, he destined majority of them to the doom. Did you ever ask yourself how come all churches that are 2000 years old: EOC, RCC, OO, have and use icons and only RCC poo, that is at the max 500 years old, namely Protestants are Iconoclastic heretics.? Are all ancient churches stupid and you re "smart" or is it the other way around.?
Very well done I'll be saving and this will be my go to for those with concerns and questions. Were those before nicea 2 that rejected icons considered sinners or ignorant? Meaning did it become a dividing and condemnable issue by the council or did the council just proclaim what was already reality? Still learning how eccumenical councils work. 2nd year in orthodoxy.
If that is one of the most very important Doctrine of the Church, then why God didn't commands it clearly! for example: 20 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou 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. 5 Thou 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; there is none ever more clear of these commands or You have much clearer that these...
LOL at bowing down to paintings. LOL at anathematizing someone over not bowing down to paintings. LOL at calling other Christians “heterodox” because they won’t bow down to paintings.
I believe it would be more useful to explain your own theology and adress the historical and doctrinal points explained in the video. I say this sincerely, because in this entire debate there is a very important Christological issue mostly ignored that is core.
@@jg7923 Stop strawmanning and make a point. They venerate the people depicted on the icons. not the paintings themselves you underling. how hard is it to understand this? or are you deliberately messing around with our Theology to help ur idiotic argument?
Tertullian became a Montanist later in life. Though it does appear the Montanists did have quite some variation in their views not unlike modern Pentecostals. I could be mistaken, but I believe Tertullian remained one of the more orthodox Montanists who mainly switched due to seeing it as more authentically spiritual without the moral laxity of the Roman church's clergy. Something to look up and verify if you'd like. Make of this what you will. Best regards.
I think the quotation of Joshua 7:6 is a mistranslation: the Greek text does not include any word for "ark" -- it just says he fell he fell to the ground, either on his face before the Lord or before the face of the Lord, depending on which translation you use. "καὶ ἔπεσεν Ἰησοῦς ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἐναντίον Κυρίου ἕως ἐσπέρας"
@@JohnVILXIII have you read Leviticus? God in the Old Testament outlines how we are to worship Him. Liturgically. Worshiping in Spirit here refers to the heart or the nous. And in truth means to have right faith. Which you do not believe in.
Yeah, but what I've seen in St Epiphanius 's text is not that he opessed icons, but that the icons were not painted right... he said that they "falsely bare the name" according to the "insanity" of the painter. Maybe he just had a problem with false icons not with icons themselves...
That's an interesting reading but personally I don't think it works, because it doesn't match up with (pseudo) epiphanius' corpus. Having said that his "panarion" which is a list of heresies that he condemns doesn't speak about iconography which is something people point out.
If this is what God wanted, from 1300 BC to 600 BC Israelis from Moses to Malachi would have covered the map in 'icons' The priesthood line of Aaron, also known as the Levitical priesthood would have overseen this in great depth, and the Lord's response would have been documented in great depth. The Lord was perfectly pleased with Israel during the early days of David. The Torah was understood and being lived up to perfectly at this time. Iconography came along 2000 years later. Jesus is the author of Judaism, it was his religion, if you seek to understand your Lord you should seek to understand Judaism a bit more.
The inscription from the grotto is incomplete. What you describe as "instructions" is really just one of many plausible reconstructions. All we know for sure is that the image was part of something that held enough significance to include an inscription which was sadly not preserved intact. Not "very clear".
@@shiningdiamond5046 It literally contains only the letter "M", not the full name "Mary". Seems overly hubristic to deny any other possible use of the letter "M" in a broken inscription.
@@shiningdiamond5046 I'm not a Protestant, and your arrogant condescension does not reflect well on your Orthodox brothers. Did not your Savior say, "Blessed are the meek"?
The Old Covenant practice has *no bearing* on New Covenant practice. All that was a blueprint, the NC is the building. There's no trace of such a practice in NT writings. Also the NT canon is mostly Apostles correcting deviant practices among Christians in the *FIRST CENTURY* , so dating a practice as "pre-Nicene" is not a validation of said practice.
Isa 9:6 For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Amazing Adviser, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Joh 14:9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Joh 10:30 The Father and I are one. Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God - the one who is, and who was, and who is still to come - the All-Powerful! Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
The images that were in the temples was images of GOD his cheribum, His menorah, His table of show bread, His ark which all is a replica of thw temple in heaven, NONE, I REPEAT NONE were of other men and women and certainly not a photo if you will, they were holy relics, no dead bones of dead saints nothing of human kind
It would be great if honesty prevailed. Icon Veneration is heresy. I wish it wasn't. The early church uniformly condemned it and so did church councils. You have to abandon orthodoxy in order for it to be right because tradition and the councils condemned it.
That is a blatant lie. Early Church was using icons since the times of the Apostles. St. Luke was a first iconographer and St. Peter ordered some to be painted so that he could use them in the teachings. Archeology helps in confirming use of icons since the antiquity. Anathema to all iconoclastic heretics.!
@@Phill0old St. John of Damascus wrote about it. You do your homework... don't expect me to pamper you. Along the way, you can investigate "Image of Edessa" also.
@@johnnyd2383 Rofl You mean The same John of Damascus who quoted things that don't exist, known forgeries and didn't know the history of those things he said were old examples? Maybe you need to check your data?
@@Phill0old Oh... I forgot your majesty "knows" everything by looking into the crystal ball... You are so (in)significant in my life that I simply did not recognize your majesty comin into play once again..
Many good points. I watch Jays video on the philosophical reasons for veneration. Was very good. Your video here is also very good. Certainly many points from Ortland stand unchallenged and misrepresented, but this video was very good and a good start. However, as a long searcher into Orthodoxy and icon venerator and wish I was Orthodox already, I want to just say that accidentally misquoting Origen needs to stop. I went and finally read the passage you cited from him because Ortland also quotes it. I have to say it is quite obvious if you actually read it, he is saying Christian temples are our bodies and altar our heart and incense is the Fruit of the Spirit, the virtues, the good deeds we do are Christians. When you misquote, by accident I'm sure, a passage, it makes one sceptical that the rest of the arguments presented are misquotes and propaganda as well and hurts your argument. I'm sure it was by accident. Im sure this was the only instance of this in your argument, however, now I will be doing my own research on the other passages you presented. Which is a net good I would think.
Origen shouldn't be quoted at all. He should be forgotten. But the Origen quote about Christians not having images and altars makes little sense because elsewhere he states that Christians do have Altars and Images.
St. Ignatius of Antioch “For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons.” (Epistle to the Philadelphians, ch. 4) Hebrews 13:10 “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” Didache speaks about making a pure sacrifice in the Eucharist, which is why I mentioned the altar association. The point is the idea that we have no altars is wrong. If Origen (and minucius felix) allegorizes it in opposition to its reality (which he has a massive tendency for it), it's his problem and he's wrong though I believe he is deliberately concealing it so as to prevent the further persecution of Christians, since at his time non-Christians were not allowed to enter Churches. This shows that one of the purposes of his apologetic was against religious syncretism. Scripture clearly says we have an altar, our Churches are temples since they are the body of Christ which is a temple, and they have images which even aniconists agree now if you've noticed. When you make a long paragraph point about me misquoting, even when you're nice about it, It makes me think you're concern trolling because the quote I posted in the presentation doesn't hide his allegorization.
@@therealMedWhite No I am not trolling. As I said I have icons that I venerate. But I stated what I stated to make sure that there is accountability and that when these arguments are met in people's ears, like my own who are following the debate, that the Orthodox arguments are accurate and powerful because of that. We gain no one or anything by not being true to the context of a passage or to the intent of an author. Your quote from Ignatius is very good proof of Christian altars and very true. There are also very early house churches that have been found with places for altars and the catacombs as well had places that look like altars. So I would just read that cited passage from Origen and see for yourself if Origen is talking about Christian temples as not being actual temples like pagan temples and how he contrasts pagan icons with humans as the icon of God. He contrasts with his counterpart on the topic about Icons being humans for we are the image of God, and Christian temples being Christians themselves as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and incense being the virtues and good deeds of a Christian, and every Christian heart is the altar. Don't read a quoted section from any website. Just read the whole passage and you'll see what is plain. I just want to be honest about the evidence. And doing so is only for the better. Because if both sides are trying to be honest will come closer to the truth. Which usually is far more complex than we ever anticipate. Now abetter way to go about this might be to take Origen for what he is saying that he is does reject physical temples and icons and such that he sees as pagan, and then dismiss him as not a saint so it doesn't matter. Or also, note that there is evidence of Christian altars, and house church's that have separate rooms where it seems only litergy was celebrate possibly. And bringing up Ignatius comments about altars. And show that he was more using this line of argument here to exaggerate the difference between pagan and Christian life and worship. Because, surely he was aware of physical Christian altars as Ignatius describes and temple like things in Christian worship as much of litergy mimics the worship from the temple in Jerusalem. So I think there is that line of reasoning to explain it without having to have Origen reject physical temples and the accept them in the same writing. He obviously clearly rejects them. And the Christian temples he refers to are Christians, icons are humans as the image of God, altars are the Christian heart. Let's all read it, the whole section, see what he's saying and deal with it as it is.
The problem taking Origen as meaning that Christians don’t literally have altars but only spiritual altars is that it kind goes against his own Eucharistic theology in his second homily on the book of Joshua: “You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST.” This is in reference to the assertion made by the book of Hebrews that Christ’s sacrifice does away with the sacrifice of Animals and instead sanctifies our altars for the offering of bread and wine.
@@justin_messer ya good point. What I saying is bring up points like yours to make the point that he could be using the line of logic he does not because Christian temples icons or altars don't exist but to exaggerate the difference between pagan life and worship and Christian life and worship. So we can all agree that Origen was not saying there are no altars, temples, icons, but that he was using language and rhetoric that took a different route to explain different aspects of Christian life and worship without having to take quotes out of context. Thats what I am saying. And I think this thread is useful with comments about altars from Ignatius and your point about his comments on altars (which I haven't read but I will take your word on it) to show that it's unlikely he really didn't know of any Christian altars, temples, or icons. But he was instead using a line of rhetoric to make a point about the difference between the Christians and pagans. We just have to take the sources for what they are saying and not misquote them because it undermines our argument.
This pic of the ppl prostrating before the Ark is just a bad argument I wish Orthodox would quit appealing to. The very presence of the Lord would be there between the Cherubim above the Ark as the scriptures say. So they are clearly prostrating before the presence of God, not the surrounding furniture. I'm seeking and open minded but these "proofs" leave me shaking my head.
It is good to see you being open minded. But, consider this... Orthodox icons theology states that our reverence in front of the icon is transferred to the person depicted on it, and if it is an icon of the Lord, we are prostrating before the Lord, if it is an icon of Saint(s), according to the (Gal 2,20) "it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me", we are prostrating to the Lord again. How different it is from the OT prostrations before the Ark.?
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
Good video. I would have added the issues with neoplatonism and origenism at 7th synod back to eusebius’ day and the arbitrary standard ortlund wants for written evidence in first three centuries undercuts own prot canon which has no support until st jerome
You're being very uncharitable towards Ortlund, say you're sorry you big meanie head!
Lol and why should they follow the canon of st Jerome. He believed in relics, veneration of saints, the eucharist etc. According to reformed doctrine he would be an idolater
@@ananonymouseuser2571 Irenic is a bigger word… lol
@@sharif8326 you’d be surprised how that point just zips over their heads. Ok maybe you wouldn’t be 😆
Hurry and paint a picture for me Jay Dyer so I can bow down to it.
Shamoun arguing the point:
Man is made in His what?
- image
In His what? I couldn't hear you
-image
Sorry? A little louder, made in His what?
-image
Lmao! Classic
Say it again. As he puts his hand to his ear ✋️ 👂
@@andys3035 exactly.... Then removes the shameful caller.
send the link to the video must see please 🫡☦️
Yeah man was in the images of God, not paintings
Keep up the good work brother David, God bless you and your effort ☦
What we do know is that the Gospel attributed to Luke contains not one word about the painting or veneration of icons. Nor is there the slightest mention of it anywhere in the New Testament where a “Luke” is mentioned - or anywhere in the New Testament at all.
Not one of the icons attributed to Luke is in a style remotely connected to the 1st century A.D. All are much, much later (and from various later times chronologically). And there is not one bit of scientific analysis dating any one of the number of icons attributed to Luke to the 1st century.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dh bla bla bla
Don’t worry, I stayed to the end and watched the whole thing. This is great to listen to whilst driving, drawing, walking, etc. The long format for this video is great.
Iconography has always been held, Luke the Evangelist was the first icon painter.
Yes.
EXACTLY 💯
@@enoch2425 💯
catholic mythology.
Got some scholarship on this?
Hey David, I am a watcher of your content and I live in Athens and if you ever visit I would love to meet up. God bless.
I haven’t watched the whole video yet so I’m not sure if you address this, but it’s interesting that Ortlund and company don’t really engage with the arguments made by saints like John of Damascus, they just try to find the earliest sources and interpret them through a Protestant lens.
That’s because the don’t have any continuity with the early church. They treat these sources the same way they treat the Bible - archeologically. They have to reconstruct a whole system from a few fragments, instead of accepting the deposit of faith as it was handled down.
Good point !
if you saw his video, he explicity addressed John of Damascus’s points
Hello David. Your videos are great and helpful. God bless you. You helped me to know the truth and to convert from OO to Orthodoxy.☦☦
Glory to God!
Was the jump from the Coptic church to Orthodoxy huge?
I converted from Protestantism and I don't think I had a huge leap as I had been non-practicing for a while.
@@acekoala457 No it is from Ethiopian Tewahedo Church.
Could you tell me the reason you converted? there must be many but I'd settle for the most important one.
@@DeaconYeabkal
Then it was a bigger jump?
I'm genuinely interested in hearing different stories.
I went from being a bass player in a worship band to having acappella music.
Amazing quality David. Thank you brother!
Hey David, I watched until the very end and I am more than impressed by your scholarship in this video. As the title says, this video has STRENGTHENED my convictions in the veneration of icons and of the decisions and anathemas passed at the holy, great, and ecumenical synod of Nicaea II. May the All Mighty Triune God bless you and all your work abundantly, God bless you David☦️❤️🔥☦️
Fantastic video. This has got to be one of the most comprehensive and extensive breakdowns out there on the subject. As a long time extremely involved and committed protestant, I very much appreciate the thoroughness.
It is sad to see that some contemporary Orthodox scholars will concede to the West when it comes to icon veneration being apostolic. Especially when there is such a plethora of evidence against it.
What do you think then
@@thespyer2k Read my comment again mate
He has just provided evidence for the veneration of icons and the most damning being the acts of John the fact that gnostics attested to christian veneration being bad means it was wide spread
David, just watching this now. Will comment as I am able. Just a first note on Origen, the comments about Origen around 25:00 reveal a lack of having read the broader context. See my response to Truglia; this is the first point I addressed there. For Origen, Christian altars, statues, etc. are metaphorical. He is making the opposite point that you are making. While you might discount Origen on the grounds that he is a heretic, the fact remains that he is describing Christian worship in his time. This historical testimony cannot be dismissed. It is unfathomable that Origen would maintain that Christians have rejected the cultic use of images if in fact the early Christians venerated images in the way Nicaea II claims.
Hey Gavin the same books says that there are altars in Churches where the Eucharistic services are held and the broader context would be the alexandrian liturgy and Clement of alexandria speaks of that in the pre communion anaphora. Also you cited sources that also speak of monastic vows and communities which for some reason you don't beleive are legitimate. Feel free to keep moving the goalpost where you like.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." [1 John 2:19] + "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." [2 Thessalonians 3:6] ☦
@@shiningdiamond5046 Yea but the altars are there so you can take the eucharist.
He doesn’t mention any statue at all after.
I bet that the testimonies of the early 2nd century Acts of John, as well as Tertullian, Methodius, the Nazareth Grotto inscription, and Eusebius were all speaking metaphorically too.
@@OrthodoxInquiry solid response.
They will keep changing the goalpoast, then the will concede that christians venerated icons but that they didnt bow to them or something like that
Or incense them etc etc lol like an atheist who asks for proof, gets it and still wants something else
The Goalpost has been stablished since Moses received the Law from God thousands of years ago. Changing the word "worship" for "veneration" would be changing the goalpost. These are the same thing: bowing down and serving graven images...
*Exodus 20*
4 Thou 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:
5 *Thou 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;
@@JohnVILXIII Then why did the Early Christians make images? Do you know better than those that gave you the scriptures you misunderstand? God gave this law to the Israelites for their early tendencies of falling into idolatry and even without images they did. We do not worship images or serve images. You are made in the Image of God, is this a graven image? You honour your mother and father, but you do not worship them. This is a really tired argument.
@@mariorizkallah5383
-Then why did the Early Christians make images?-
What early Christians are you talking about?
Are those Christians which disobey God’s Commandments? Just Because someone call himself "Christian" it does not make him a christian. They should believe and obey God’s Word. That’s what a Christian does...
-Do you know better than those that gave you the scriptures you misunderstand?-
No. No one knows better than God, his apostles and his prophets. Do you know better than them?
-God gave this law to the Israelites for their early tendencies of falling into idolatry and even without images they did.-
They made graven images and bowed down before them, such as the golden calf, Moloch, Renfan, etc. That’s call idolatry
-We do not worship images or serve images.-
Orthodox bow down before graven images, kiss them and "venerate" them. You are disobeying the 2nd commandment. This is idolatry and is sinful and wicked.
-You are made in the Image of God, is this a graven image?-
Im not a graven image and no one should worship me, neither no one does. What’s your argument?
-You honour your mother and father, but you do not worship them.-
Correct. I don’t bow down before my mother and father like they were God but I honour and respect them to be a good Son.
-This is a really tired argument.-
There is no argument. Obey God’s Commandment. Repent from your idolatry...
@@JohnVILXIII lol
1:15:08 Epiphanius is the best father to prove iconodulia is early and the majority position. Those quotes backfires at the neo-iconoclasts (I bet soon they will deny their authenticity).
Its good to remember that Epiphanius was a JEWISH (romaniotes) convert. And jews had a more scrupulous behaviour toward images.
And it is no problem deniyng something that our saint have said, we do that with Augustine too. The saints were not perfect in all they said.
Suan from Intellectual Catholicism (even though he's Catholic) had an amazing point on that letter, namely, that in the original Greek version of Epiphanius' letter, the "image" on the curtain is actually an image of a Pagan god! Therefore, Epiphanius was only an "iconoclast" in that case against the Pagan images, especially being located in the church!
Great video! Beautifully presented, too.
54:57 this was a very strong point. I hadn’t thought of it this way. Words are symbols that predicate of realities beyond them just as icons, if verse are able to be venerated images by necessity would also be because they are functionally the same thing. My favorite part of this presentation. Thank you for this wealth of information
The Orthobro Anti-Funko Popism is my favorite meme.
What is an Orthobro?
Funko Pope
because funko-pops are for low t consumerist "men"
@@voievod9260
It's kind of a slang (it stands for Ortho(dox) bro(ther) ).
Thank you! You have helped me to further complete my thoughts in different areas relating to this topic! I agree on many points and I think (as a transitioning baptist) that the ultimate blockade for protestants regarding this issue lies at the core of their doctrine that rejects any form of Church authority being part of the church from the beginning! (SEE JOHN 20:22-23 apostles are given authority to FORGIVE SINS BY JESUS! And SEE ACTS 15, the early counsel of the church making decisions!)
Very well done, brother. 🙏☦️ Keep up the great work!
Great work man. Down with the Protestant heresies
The admission from Protestants that the catacombs have images seems absolutely retarded to me. Like, "Yeah, we know."
Because it’s used as an argument when it cannot be used as one. “Icon veneration is true because icons exist” is so tiresome.
@M R Is the Idol, "God?"
@@Wilkins325 because the use of the object is implied in its creation.
It's like separating a book existing, then adding extra demands for proof it was read.
@@Wilkins325 the point is your people claimed there is none whatsoever and there are numerous, no ancient Church looks even remotely close to a protestant fake church they all resemble either antiochian or coptic style churches
When I was inquiring initially I asked about Icons and the Veneration. The Greek Priest I was under was very blunt, "You kiss your mom right?"
Is your mom a graven image?
@@JohnVILXIII The understanding is that people are icons/images of God themselves and can be given honor and it's not worship.
@@Cahrub No. People is people. I’m not a graven image neither you are.
You can honour people, not bowing down before and praying to them like they were God. That would be idolatry. And that’s what you do with your "icons" which are graven images...
@@JohnVILXIII hope you are at least consistent and have no pictures in your house.
Bowing is not idolatry. People bow to each other all over the world. Get out of your western headspace and experience some other cultures.
@@JohnVILXIII the Bible clearly teaches that all people are images of God
Hello everyone, that video was the best and very clear with all this evidence. I hope the protestants rethink again about images, saints, etc
and enjoy the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
Who is the idol being worshipped by catholics you talked about around 1:40? I couldn't catch it and would like to learn more about that
If I may add this less known indirect testimony to the list : at the end of the Vth century, the bishop Serenus of Marseille (South of Gaul) went angry against his own laymen and broke all icons in his diocese that people were venerating (he thought they were "adoring the paint"). It made such a scandal that it created a schism, and that Pope St Gregory had to write Serenus to put back icons into the churches (even though Gregory makes no distinction, it seems, between "adoration" and "veneration" and says images are okay only for instruction/didactic purposes). In his Letter 90 to Serenus of Marseille (Book IX of the Registered Letters), Pope St Gregory reports : 'It has been said to me that in breaking those images you have scandalized your flock so much that the majority of the latter has separated itself from your communion.' Pope St Gregory thinks images should not be bowed down to (he thinks only the Holy Trinity should be bowed down to), but thinks they have their place in the Church for instruction (but the reasoning of Gregory here is not consistent : he says adoring images is against the Scriptures, identifying veneration of icons and adoration, but still thinks making such images is okay, whereas the second commandment of the Decalogue says idols are not to be made nor worshipped ; if icons are idols they should not be even made, if they are not, then bowing down to them in respect is not "adoration").
Very good point.
this is addressed in the 7th ecumenical council
Could you somehow link the letter of Isidore? Where did you find a copy online?
As a Roman Catholic I thought this was the best critique of Gavin Ortlund's video. I appreciated lots of great points from the Catholic rebuttals (sufficient to well and truly discredit Ortlund's argument) but I agree with yours, overall, more than theirs, especially the way you handled Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Like you I don't think there was any development, but rather veneration was there from the time of the Apostles and so historically present during the early Church right up to the time of the seventh ecumenical council. Thanks
The Roman Catholic Churches, do not regard, Icons, and or statues as a development. The RCC, defended Icons, and Pope St. Gregory III, fought iconoclasm. The RCC like Orthodox Church, venerate Icons. The RCC accepts the 7th Ecumenical Council.
@@andrewmusano839 yes I agree.
They haven’t debunked Gavin at all but agree it as a development and since Nicea 2 needed forgeries to claim this practice as apostolic it takes all validity from them
I’m Catholic and I thank you for this! There is a huge difference between the proper use of religious imagery, worship of these images, and outright idolatry. Both Catholic and Orthodox stand falsely accused and we are innocent.
It’s hard to explain to Protestants the difference between worship and veneration or between latria and dulia. Our faiths are far older than theirs and both Catholic and Orthodox had to teach the mostly illiterate faithful via statue, icon, or other religious art.
Because there’s no such a thing, those terms are invented after the 7 century.
@@internautaoriginal9951 incorrect, St Augustine uses them. Way before 7th century
Protestant faiths aren't "newer". They've always focused on scripture being the ultimate authority over man made traditions. The New Testament scripture which is older than the "Roman Catholic faith"
@@ninjason57in fact, no. you guys are just making new interpretations of the bible that even among yourselves is uncertain. sola fide is super unhistorical, practically a new doctrine...
@@ninjason57 Scripture isn't self-interpreting, hence your thousands of sects. You need a normative authority to interpret the text. That authority is the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ. Christ gave authority to His Apostles to rule the Church and their authority to teach was passed down to the bishops they appointed and the priests under them. Its been continuing like this for centuries and millennia. This is Apostolic Succession.
That passage from Irenaeus was about misleading people, not about honoring or dishonoring someone through the use of an image. The final sentences of that passage: "In like manner do these persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma." And the sentences that preceded it: "Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth."
The notion that this is about honor/dishonor via images is very contrived.
I think you made an excellent case that icon veneration was a Christian practice prior to the 6th and 7th centuries (by at least 200-300 years), contra Ortlund and the scholars he appeals to.
I am wondering about something, though. If this was such a widespread practice, why do so many of these Church fathers and figures appeal to the example of images of emperors in their arguments rather than appealing to their icons and how veneration passes to their prototypes? Is it because their audience wasn't always or all Christians? Is it because the images of emperors (and venerating or dishonoring them) were just so ubiquitous and therefore more well-known to everyone?
Archeology also confirms their early usage.
Hello David,
completely unrelated to this video but..
I have just come across your channel and see that you are an Orthodox Christian Turk. Is that correct?
I am 1/3 Turkish from my mother's side, but can't really speak a lot of Turkish, although I would love to learn it. I figured that, in order to learn Turkish, I would ideally find Turkish content I am interested in. Currently my biggest areas of interest are philosophy and theology, especially concerning Orthodox Christianity.
Are there any Turkish works, books, authors, youtubers or what not, that talk about philosophy, theology and Orthodox Christianity, that you could recommend by any chance? I don't speak a lot myself, but I understand and can comprehend more than I speak, and since the interest is there, it doesn't have to be complete beginner level. I am basically interested in any intermediate content about philosophy and theology in Turkish.
Recommendations would be appreciated!
Canon 36 of Elvira has no strength. St. Nektarios of Aegina says,
"a council against images was convened in Illiberis (Granada), Spain, in 305-306… As for this ban, those who deal with related matters attribute it to the persecution led by Diocletian, during which those persecuting the Christians would enter their assemblies and destroy and defile the images. Seeing this destruction and dishonor, the council prohibited both the making and veneration of images."
The Canon of Elvira has strength, what is worshipped should not be placed in walls is really simple.
@@internautaoriginal9951 did you not even read what I wrote?
@@TheForbiddenLean Yea this is normal since the Early church didn’t venérate icons, they would be surprise because they wouldn’t find a graven image.
@@internautaoriginal9951 the point was that the images weren't prohibited for idolatrous reasons, but in order to protect them from abuse was the canon created. Such as when the barabarians sacked a Christian city, and took up residence in a church. While in the church they had orgies and got drunk, and one night they fired an arrow at an Icon and it began to bleed. The next day they were removed from the church and destroyed.
@@TheForbiddenLean That story is fake, how an icon began to bleed ? It sound like a demonic possession, please give me a source I can trust.
Icon veneration is not biblical, he gave an example the ark of the covenant which is the dwelling place of God.
Since Jesus full fills the tabernacle he’s the Ark, the Temple and the perfect sacrifice we don’t need this images anymore, he debunked his own argument.
A sincere question: by declaring anathema (and therefore damnation) against all who do not venerate icons doesn't this veneration become a requirement for salvation? If so, why is this requirement of icon veneration not mentioned in the preaching of the apostles in the Book of Acts? How is it that thousands came to Christ through this preaching without any such veneration being preached or practiced? How is this not a different gospel than preached by Paul, who's gospel made no mention of venerating icons?
an anathema isn't declaring damnation
Anathema is the most extreme sanction that the Orthodox Church can take against a member of the Church for wrong doing. An anathema is a complete separation, an expulsion, from the Church.
The Orthodox Church distinguishes between excommunication, that is "separation from the communion of the Church", and other penances and anathema. Under excommunication a person remains a member of the Church even though his or her participation in its mystical life, particularly communion, is restricted until the repentance of the one under excommunication. Whereas those under anathema are considered to be completely separated from the Church until repentance.
The two principal causes for which a person may be anathematized are heresy and schism. Anathematization is used by the Church only as a last resort, and must always be preceded by pastoral attempts to reason with the offender to bring about his restoration to the faith. orthodoxwiki.org/Anathema#:~:text=An%20anathema%20is%20a%20complete,an%20expulsion%2C%20from%20the%20Church.
JY here, Excellent video and break down. I think the argumentation from History is another thing they ignore and your video does great job breaking it down.
Perhaps Eusebius' letter to Constantia (the sister of Constantine the Great) may be helpful. Constantia requested that Eusebius (the church historian who authored The Church History) send her an image of Christ, and Eusebius wrote her the following response. I quote a translation of it here, at least the full of what survives to this day:
Translation by Cyril Mango, from The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453 (1972, rep. 1986), p. 16-18.
Letter from Eusebius of Caesaria (circa 260-399 AD) to Constantia.
[I marked notable portions in bold.]
"To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error."
You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears His essential characteristics, or the one which He took up for our sake when He assumed the form of a servant? … Granted, He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. … Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He-the God, Logos-was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspect of His Kingdom, He showed on the mount that nature which surpasses the human one-when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who, then, would be able to represent by means of dead colors and inanimate delineations (skiagraphiai) the glistening, flashing radiance of such dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him in this guise and fell on their faces, thus admitting that they could not withstand the sight? If, therefore, His incarnate form possessed such power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I say of the time when He put off mortality and washed off corruption, when He changed the form of the servant into the glory of the Lord God… ? … How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form-if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence-unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything… ? For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us.
But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of His form transformed into that of God, but that of the mortal flesh before its transformation, can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?
Once- I do not know how-a woman brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the guise of philosophers and let fall the statement that they were Paul and the Saviour-I have no means of saying where she had had this from or learned such a thing. With the view that neither she nor others might be given offence, I took it away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, lest we appear, like idol worshippers, to carry our God around in an image. I note that Paul instructs all of us not to cling any more to things of the flesh; for, he says, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.
It is said that Simon the sorcerer is worshipped by godless heretics painted in lifeless material. I have also seen myself the man who bears the name of madness57 [painted] on an image and escorted by Manichees. To us, however, such things are forbidden. For in confessing the Lord God, Our Saviour, we make ready to see Him as God, and we ourselves cleanse our hearts that we may see Him after we have been cleansed…
[Footnote]
57 “the man who bears the name of madness” is Mani the founder of Manichaeism.
[Mani is the heretic after whom Manichaeism, a form of gnosticism, is named. Eusebius talks about and condemns his heresy in "The Church History", book 7, chapter 31.]
It is very notable to me that this was written in the fourth century, where it was observed by Eusebius that the use of images was "banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?"
I bring this up because it seems to me that Christians who are lured to the Orthodox or Catholic church have this notion that they are somehow getting in touch with the ancient and original Christianity, but from the looks of this letter from Eusebius, it looks like the original Christianity actually took the Bible's commandments about not making images and not venerating them very seriously. It looks like what is being passed off as a historic Christianity is actually Christianity that has strayed from its roots.
Consider this passage from History of Eastern Christianity about the Church of the East:
Then suddenly came the age of re-discovery1 of their little community as a revelation to a bewildered world. The story started with a certain Claude James Rich, then Resident of the British East lndia Company in Baghdad, who was not a man of religion but happened to he highly cultured and possessed of a very keen interest in archaeology. He visited the ancient site of the Biblical city of Nineveh in 1820, and his report2 on the area excited all manner of circles, both scholarly and missionary, in England and America. At long last he revealed to the English-speaking races the astounding facts about the Assyrians, who still conversed in a language similar to that spoken by Jesus and the Apostles and whose peculiar form of Christianity called for study and sympathy. A systematic archaeological exploration was commenced by A. H. Layard.3 On the religious side, however, the Nestorians were evidently and traditionally anti-popish and had neither icons nor crucifixes in their churches, only a simple and symbolic Cross. Their attitude towards the Virgin Mary was much akin to Protestant conceptions. Could they be the ancient ‘Protestants of the East’? Hence ensued a deluge of missions and Protestant missionaries to those forlorn sons of a historic church in their Godforsaken abodes.
The Church of the East split from the Great Church (a.k.a. the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" prior to any major schism) at the council of Ephesus in 431 AD, over Nestorius (patriarch of Constantinople) being falsely condemned and excommunicated for a heresy he didn't teach, with Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch of Alexandria) prosecuting him with a misrepresentation of his teaching, accusing him of teaching that there were two Christs, one human and one divine, because Nestorius taught that Mary ought to be called the Christotokos (the "mother of Christ") rather than Theotokos ("mother of God"). (See Know the Creeds and Councils, Chapter 3, Council of Ephesus.) From that time on, Nestorius was known as a heretic in the west, but as a saint in the east: Mar Nestor.
My point in quoting Eusebius and this portion about the Church of the East is that it shows that the image venerating sects of Christianity are not representing some sort of continuity with early historic Christianity, the very thing that Protestant converts to Eastern Orthodoxy find appealing. Rather, image veneration appear to represent a deviation from what the church originally practiced for at least its first four centuries, as confirmed by these two witnesses-Eusebius, and the Church of the East-I can't say it better than Eusebius said it, so I'll quote him again:
can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?
You realize that this letter is was first mentioned in during the Iconoclastic council of Hieria in 754? And it almost completely contradicts his positive mentions of holy images in his book church history. You are quoting what is probably a forgery my guy
You talked about how Origen says "we have altars, temples and statues", but I've heard that they are allegories for Christian virtues, not actual altars, temples and statues. Thoughts?
Enjoying your video. About the mezuzah stuff, I found the article on chabad you used. I think you tried to link kissing the mezuzah to 1st century practices but so far all I see is placing hand on it. Rabbi Isaac Luria, who suggested kissing it, was from 16th century. Perhaps the eastern Orthodox influenced him. But it was not entirely correct to say "this veneration" (i.e. the kissing) is a first century practice. I will keep watching
On the topic of the healing statue referencing the woman who was healed by touching the fringe of Christ's cloak (Luke 8), this is a fulfilled prophecy from Malachi 4:2. "Healing in His wings, the word here for "wings" can also be translated as "fringe", and the fringe of Jewish cloaks we're called tzitzit. The word for the fringe of the cloak and wings were very closely related. So Christ did have healing in His wings!
I'm Brazilian. This is so funny, man! Hear my testimony. My wife was hearing a protestant pastor. He said that the early christian were so afraid of doing idolatry that they even prevented themselvs of PAINTING THE BRICKS OF THEIR CHURCHES!!! Man! When I heard that, I went crazy! I said to myself, "christians would take the body of those who were martyerd to venerate them, and they were afraid of painting their wall?!" COME ON!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Great video! As it was declared after the ichonomachia iconography is the book of the illiterate when the majority was illiterate they are for us to remember! The icons are not idols! Greetings from Athens Greece
They are, he used false evidence.
And miss-interpretations
@@internautaoriginal9951 icons are not idols iniconic art is part of other creeds but not in Greek Orthodox Christianity. I will only say the following no religion can exist without its historical context. Transgressions are done in every era and all scripture has been interpreted accordingly. Yet iconography is a major part of Orthodox Christians in particular. We remember through them. The Trinity can be explained through the miracle of St Spyridon in the ecumenical summit of 325 AD where the Trinity presented itself with the miracle of the ceramic tile. Greek people always had a yearning for piety. In ancient Greek writings there is evidence of Christianity called the Psygms. Trust me when we attend church very few bother with the icons they get encased in the words and the ritual. Now how is religion taught in every school in my country. Elementary deals with the story the parables etc Middle school elaborates on the faith and all other religions Abrahamic and not. High-school answers the deeper questions and those six years lessons are done by theologians. Bear in mind that we consider the Jesuit oath to be a negative thing as many other oaths regarding infidels and their demise. Icons are not the problem!
@@internautaoriginal9951 they are not.
love all these!
Hello, The Roman Catholic Churches, do not regard, Icons, and or statues as a development. The RCC, defended Icons, and Pope St. Gregory III, fought iconoclasm. The RCC like Orthodox Church, venerate Icons. The RCC accepts the 7th Ecumenical Council. Luke was also the first to make an Icon.
where in the NEW TESTAMENT writers commands the VENERATION OF IMAGES?
They are neither commanded nor forbidden in the NT.
@@johnnyd2383yet they are commanded by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
@@ScroopGroop ... because it clearly distinguishes believers from infidels. Icons are stumbling block to infidels and are placed by the Holy Spirit to wall off the Church from the heretics.
@@johnnyd2383 that’s the purpose of them? Or is it for the parishioners veneration to be passed on to the prototype? Also scripture is weirdly clear about not placing stumbling blocks so it seems wildly out of character the Holy Spirit saw it fit to leave it completely absent from scripture, and allowed for confusion for 800 years before finally sorting that one out.
@@ScroopGroop They are multipurpose and are venerated by all faithful, laity and clergy alike. Those who walk in the darkness are stumbling all the time - John 11, 9-10. You want to reverse-engineer Church's manual called Bible.? Good luck with that.! You can immediately think of starting your own private business, call it a "church" preach tithe and start collecting big $$$. That is called Protestantism. Best marketing move that will help you lure more ppl in your business would be promising them "eternal salvation" as soon as they remit first payment.
Respectfully, there's a huge stumbling block when Mary appears so prominently in the iconography...
@sirmahakaal6389 Ive never heard this, can you elaborate a little?
@sirmahakaal6389 so it was foreshadowing Mary and Jesus?
@@Luca-dk3mb yes most of the old testament is displaying 'types' of foreshadowing of the reality to come.
She's pretty prominent in the gospels too
@@shiningdiamond5046 "pretty prominent"?- so is Paul, Peter, John, Luke - where are the equal amounts of iconography for them? ..:`
43:00 you say that Turtullian's argument that some images are okay is incorrect. I respectfully disagree. It is a valid argument. God's command to build His arc and include representations of cherubic angels on it is all within God's right to do that. As a holy God who is pure good, pure love, pure power, pure knowledge, pure morality, etc., He is the judge of what is right. He can command Canaanite women and children to be murdered and retain His goodness and holiness. That one act did not confer "double 0" status to the Jews and give them a license to kill whomever they wished without incurring the judgment of God. God's allowing His sanctuary and arc on earth to mirror that which is taking place in the heavenlies does not grant us license to then make icons, statues, or likenesses of other angels or saints at our own discretion.
Lmao cope
Wait so this appeals to the Gelasian Decree as correct in its findings? I've talked to an Orthodox priest who thought the Protoevangelium of James is an authoritative document, is that not considered to be true among Orthodox Christians?
It is authoritative and used by many fathers
36:07 by the way modem scholars say that Synod of Elvira didn’t prohibit images. It just prohibited a certain type of images
This is going to fly over most people's heads because they simply havent thouht much about the incarnation and it's implications and how God interacts with the world. Man these guys will have a tough time against educated muslims lol. Pray for them.
Back to this video a year later after Gavin Ortlund dropped his newest Aniconist video
♡
Paul about Grey Areas: 1 Cor 8:9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
Also when we are protected in the Name of Jesus or The Blood of Jesus is like icons? I went recently to Greece to cisit also Corinth and the guide-archeologist said to us that the oldest churches buildings on Greece are from the III-IVth century and the Apostle Paul dint not build a christian church (building) the first churches are Byzantines?
Thoughts on the new Ortlund video?
At 28:25 you called Tertullian a father, I assume that was a mistake?
Separately from that, I'm seeing in your comments around 31:00 a tendency that's very common in Eastern Orthodox, which is the love of the Ad Hominem. You're attacking Tertullian's (alleged) character, as if people liking him or his alleged belligerence is somehow indicative of whether he's right. If you're going to bring up other logical fallacies, make sure you're not guilty of that yourself. Or, if it's not Ad Hominem, it's just an unprovoked attack. Keep in mind Jude 9. Satan is the accuser.
Origen, in Contra Celsum Book VIII, explicitly describes the altars, statues, and temples of Christians as being not physically crafted out of material. Read chapters 17-19 for the proper context out of which chapter 20 must be quoted. To say that chapter 20 is evidence of physical/material altars, statues, and temples is nonsense when the passage is read in context.
Except Origen is quite clear in his second homily on the Book of Joshua that we not only have physical altars but that we also have priests and levites in the form of the Presbyterate and the diaconate. Furthermore, Origen even says in his second homily on Joshua that we no longer offer bulls and calves upon those altars but that those same altars are sanctified by the blood of Christ for the Eucharistic offering of bread and wine.
If you think Origen is being literal that we don’t have any physical altars then you will have to argue that Origen is being inconsistent in the physical nature of the Eucharist and it’s ties to the Old Testament system of sacrifices.
@@justin_messer Perhaps you meant to cite something else -- I found no mention of the diaconate in Homily 2.
"When, indeed, you see nations enter into the faith, churches raised up, altars sprinkled not with the flowing blood of beasts but consecrated with the 'precious blood of Christ'; when you see priests and Levites ministering not 'the blood of bulls and goats' but the Word of God through the grace of the Holy Spirit, then say that Jesus received and retained the leadership after Moses--not Jesus the son of Nun, but Jesus the Son of God."
I am also unaware of any sprinkling of the Eucharist to consecrate an altar in Orthodox praxis. Let me know if I'm wrong on that. Barring that, the altar that is consecrated must be within the communicant.
@@k98killer except that’s not what I said. I said that the blood of Christ sanctifies our altars for the expressed purpose of making the Eucharistic sacrifice. Not only that but Origen makes explicit reference to the fact that priests AND levites attend these altars in the modern day. Who are the levites and priests but the priests sbd deacons? Literally the modern deacon fulfills the function of the levites by attending to and assisting the presbyters on their ministering.
@@justin_messer except that's not what Origen said: he said "consecrated", not "sanctified". It doesn't matter what you said except insofar as you ascribed it erroneously to Origen.
Anyway, I get what you're saying about the diaconite being the Levites. I yet contend that nothing in that homily necessitates physical altars in contravention of the symbolic altars he explicitly described in the chapters I cited. My point still stands that the original use of chapter 20 was out of context and therefore invalid. It's a minor point not really worth further time arguing over. It would not be unmanly to concede it.
@@k98killer sanctification and consecration are the same thing. It is the act of setting it apart and making it Holy. One entails the other. This is just useless nitpicking and grasping at straws.
If Origen is arguing that there are only spiritual priests and spiritual altars, ie that the only priests and altars that exist are the body of believers and the altars their souls, then who are the spiritual levites? Since the function of the levites is to assist the priests in the temple ministries.
It's kind of weird to condemn Origen and venerate Ambrose when they were both confessors, and Ambrose was a gnostic until taught by Origen.
do you know better than the Holy Spirit?
kinda weird to go against the ecumenical councils.
What I find upsetting, they condemn Origen a few 100 years later, after he was buried as a Christian, etc..
@@mariorizkallah5383 what was the Holy Spirit's argument for this? And what ecumenical council decided that Origen was not a saint despite suffering torture and subsequent death from his wounds for Christ?
@@k98killer 6th
The icons are not venerated. It's the Saint whom the icon depicts who's being venerated (loved) by fellow Christians. "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (John 13:34 KJV)"
Gavin Ortlund convinced me on youtube that dulia of icons was not normative in the early church or even permitted. It is an accretion, which he asserts is then mandated at the 7th ecumenical Council eg venerate icons or be anathema! Wow...what happened to the Gospel? If I don't kiss pictures of the saints I'm going to hell? That seems to be the assertion of the 7th ecumenical Council. Its a huge problem. Gavin Ortlund on icons. Check it out.
Instead of having shallow approach to the topic, try to get deeper into the relation of Lord's incarnation and His deifying of the entire material world by taking a flesh upon Himself. Make sure there are no Gnostic underlying causes of your resentment towards anything material and remember manifestations of the God through the matter in the Bible. Read theology of the 7th Ecumenical Council as many times as necessary until it eventually sink in. Remember - very same Holy Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church that is prescribing use of icons has produced Bible as you know it. You can't in one case say it is right and in the other it is wrong... that would be book case of hypocrisy.
The exact same thing could be said of the Trinity. The Trinity was also not normative.
As well as the CANON OF SCRIPTURE. There was no normative canon of scripture until many centuries after Christ.
Paul says kiss your brothers and to do that with icons is to do so with Intent of the love passing to the brother it represents.
I question the argument of icon usage as worship to God through the practice of veneration.
Exodus 20:4-6 (ESV): 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, 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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Not only does God condemn carving images of those in heaven, but there is not a single Bible passage that instructs believers to venerate
argument from silence fallacy
Read Deuteronomy 4, 15-19 where it is explained as to why 2nd commandment was given. Ever since Lord incarnated, He has become "visible image (icon) of the invisible God".
Again this draws conclusions from silence, the burden of proof is on the EO for claiming apostolic origin with no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is not on the person positing the lack of prescription as a concern.
@@ScroopGroop Evidences exist. It is up to the specific heretic whether to ignore them or not.
@@johnnyd2383 I mean that’s simply an untrue assertion. All evidence if ever been presented is spurious at best, forgeries at worst, and completely non existent in most scenarios
This isn’t a criticism of the entire video, but I did notice that the way you treat Origen’s statements about statues in Contra Celsum doesn’t take into account the context, where he seems to make it clear that he is not talking about physical statues (or even altars, for that matter). Shortly before the part you quoted, for example, Origen says (Chapters 17-18), “[W]e regard the spirit of every good man as an altar from which arises an incense which is truly and spiritually sweet-smelling, namely, the prayers ascending from a pure conscience. . . . And the statues . . . [are] the virtues. In all those, then, who plant and cultivate . . . virtues, these excellences are their statues they raise . . . And again, they who ‘put off the old man with his deeds[‘] . . . do raise within themselves a statue . . . And everyone who imitates Him according to his ability does by this very endeavor raise a statue according to the image of the Creator, for in the contemplation of God with a pure heart they become imitators of Him. And, in general, we see that all Christians strive to raise altars and statues as we have described them, and these not of a lifeless and senseless kind . . . Let any one, therefore, who chooses to compare the altars which I have described with those spoken of by Celsus, and the images in the souls of those who worship the Most High God with the statues of Pheidias, Polycletus, and such like, and he will clearly perceive, that while the latter are lifeless things, and subject to the ravages of time, the former abide in the immortal spirit.”
In other words, Origen seems to be saying here that the “statues” which Christians raise are not physical statues but rather are virtues in the soul. So, the quote doesn't seem to work in quite the way you suggest in the video. Maybe you could clarify?
Origin was a Gnostic, it doesn't mean that he's wrong about the metaphysical interpretation, but that's not primarily how a Christian would see it. A Christian would say the metaphorical meaning is only possible because of the historical one.
That's why right after quoting Origin, David mentioned the Eucharist.
Thanks!
The civil war in the Eastern Roman Empire that went on about a century, is evidence enough about the use of icons and their veneration in the first centuries of the Church.
The biggest problem is the fact that both jews and Muslims did not accept jesus as the one God made flesh. That the biggest hurdle.
It’s clearly an accretion.
Nice counter argument😂
Why don’t we see ancient Jews venerating icons of the patriarchs and prophets? Would it have been acceptable to the Lord to have an icon of Moses in the homes of the Jews for private prayer? Or of Abraham? Or, is icon veneration as practiced in Orthodoxy a Greek innovation?
We do see the Hebrews venerating Images. You died if you didn't venerate the Ark. You abased yourself when in front of the Temple, which is an image of the Heavenly Worship.
The Preincarnational Christians were not iconophobes.
We see icons and prostrations in these verses as worship to God through Holy Objects.
On the Ark - Exodus 25:18-22
On the curtains of the Tabernacle exodus 26:1
On the Veil of the Holy of Holies Exodus 26:31
Two Huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary 1 Kings 6:23
Icons on the Walls 1 Kings 6:29
The Doors 1 Kings 6:32
furnishings 1 Kings 7:29,36
David bowing and having the Temple decorated 1 Chronicles 29
You sound like time stopped before Lord's coming and you in your delusions live in the OT times.
Pentru că în Vechiul Testament Dumnezeu nu putea fi reprezentat prin imagine, dar după întruparea Lui Hristos, intrarea Lui în istorie, da, El putea fi reprezentat, așa cum l-au văzut oamenii care au trăit în vremea aceea.
Give me a very Clear Command about the Icon Veneration!
Decalogue together with the OT law had found it's fulfillment in the Christ. He is "visible image (icon) of the invisible God..."
@@johnnyd2383how is that at all a command? Much less in regards to icons of those other than Christ?
@@ScroopGroop It may be too subtle for the depth of your hat, but in every Saint Christ lives and thus by making an icon of the Saint Christ is not put aside.
@@johnnyd2383 can we not respond with backhanded remarks?
I’m positing that the EO position makes dogma out of assumption and silence, and I’m met with not substance, or commentary, only insults about how I’m too dumb to understand something necessary for my salvation? Did Christ come only for those capable incredible philosophical prowess, who also happen to sniff out the right institution to submit one’s conscience to?
Spare me a response if all you plan on doing is continuing to sling baseless insults.
@@ScroopGroop There are multiple reasons for one to have veil over one's face that is blinding one. Pride is the chief of all reasons. Since unhappy drunken German monk with his heresies elevated every of his followers to the throne of the Pope, making them all infallible in matters of faith, he destined majority of them to the doom. Did you ever ask yourself how come all churches that are 2000 years old: EOC, RCC, OO, have and use icons and only RCC poo, that is at the max 500 years old, namely Protestants are Iconoclastic heretics.? Are all ancient churches stupid and you re "smart" or is it the other way around.?
Very well done I'll be saving and this will be my go to for those with concerns and questions.
Were those before nicea 2 that rejected icons considered sinners or ignorant? Meaning did it become a dividing and condemnable issue by the council or did the council just proclaim what was already reality? Still learning how eccumenical councils work. 2nd year in orthodoxy.
Good video 🔥🔥🔥
Great video. God Himself has an image, and Humanity is made in that image, making Icons a Christian practice.
If that is one of the most very important Doctrine of the Church, then why God didn't commands it clearly! for example: 20 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou 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.
5 Thou 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; there is none ever more clear of these commands or You have much clearer that these...
They are placed by the Holy Spirit to be a stumbling block for unbelievers.
@@johnnyd2383 Romans 14:13, “never put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother
@@ScroopGroop Except that Heterodox are not brethren but unrepented heretics, who, like you, engage in slander against the Lord's Church. (Jude 1, 18)
@@ScroopGroop Great peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble Psalm 119
@@shiningdiamond5046 pitting scripture against scripture I see
No excuses for idolatry
Yeah, that’s why the 7th ecumenical council condemns Idolatry. There is no excuse to confuse veneration with idolatry.
They have no excuse they needed forgeries to claim it to be apostolic.
@@mariorizkallah5383 You guys depend on idols which is idolatrous
@@internautaoriginal9951 You know nothing you just protestant sectant and deep down you know that
LOL at bowing down to paintings.
LOL at anathematizing someone over not bowing down to paintings.
LOL at calling other Christians “heterodox” because they won’t bow down to paintings.
They are called heterodox for other reasons as well
they depict deified people and our savior, to not venerate them is profane,
I dont care what you lol at clown
@@TheMhouk2 LOL at bowing down to paint and wood.
LOL at you being triggered.
I believe it would be more useful to explain your own theology and adress the historical and doctrinal points explained in the video. I say this sincerely, because in this entire debate there is a very important Christological issue mostly ignored that is core.
@@jg7923 Stop strawmanning and make a point. They venerate the people depicted on the icons. not the paintings themselves you underling. how hard is it to understand this? or are you deliberately messing around with our Theology to help ur idiotic argument?
I would give a like, but I see exactly 888 likes, so I don't wanna ruin that. :))))
Good video btw! 👍
Second Commandment explained in Deuteronomy 4:15-19.
How was Tertullian an apostate ? I don’t know much about him.
Tertullian became a Montanist later in life. Though it does appear the Montanists did have quite some variation in their views not unlike modern Pentecostals. I could be mistaken, but I believe Tertullian remained one of the more orthodox Montanists who mainly switched due to seeing it as more authentically spiritual without the moral laxity of the Roman church's clergy. Something to look up and verify if you'd like.
Make of this what you will. Best regards.
I think the quotation of Joshua 7:6 is a mistranslation: the Greek text does not include any word for "ark" -- it just says he fell he fell to the ground, either on his face before the Lord or before the face of the Lord, depending on which translation you use. "καὶ ἔπεσεν Ἰησοῦς ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἐναντίον Κυρίου ἕως ἐσπέρας"
Septuagant is wrong on this one
The Hebrew is actually clear that the Ark was the object of Joshua’s bowing.
@@justin_messer by "the Hebrew", do you mean the Masoretic text written hundreds of years after the Incarnation to downplay Christ's significance?
@@shiningdiamond5046 ah yes no references just an internet laymen who doesn't like what he sees
*Isaiah 42:8*
_"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."_
So true! Worship should be given only to God not pagan gods.
Interesting, i wonder how they worshipped the Lord hm
@@MrDavicovic Yes. Neither his praise to graven images.
@@mariorizkallah5383 *John 4:24*
_"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."_
@@JohnVILXIII have you read Leviticus? God in the Old Testament outlines how we are to worship Him. Liturgically. Worshiping in Spirit here refers to the heart or the nous. And in truth means to have right faith. Which you do not believe in.
Yeah, but what I've seen in St Epiphanius 's text is not that he opessed icons, but that the icons were not painted right... he said that they "falsely bare the name" according to the "insanity" of the painter. Maybe he just had a problem with false icons not with icons themselves...
That's an interesting reading but personally I don't think it works, because it doesn't match up with (pseudo) epiphanius' corpus. Having said that his "panarion" which is a list of heresies that he condemns doesn't speak about iconography which is something people point out.
@@therealMedWhite is there a way to talk to you I have some questions
@@therealMedWhite I have some questions is there a way to talk to you there honest questions
Hippolytus only talks about images of Christ, not “counterfeit” in the original greek
I've read the original Greek it's counterfeit
So will I go to hell if I don't kiss an icon?
@sirmahakaal6389 no you won’t.
Symbols of Christianity are fine to venerate.
If this is what God wanted, from 1300 BC to 600 BC Israelis from Moses to Malachi would have covered the map in 'icons'
The priesthood line of Aaron, also known as the Levitical priesthood would have overseen this in great depth, and the Lord's response would have been documented in great depth.
The Lord was perfectly pleased with Israel during the early days of David. The Torah was understood and being lived up to perfectly at this time.
Iconography came along 2000 years later. Jesus is the author of Judaism, it was his religion, if you seek to understand your Lord you should seek to understand Judaism a bit more.
was Christ's human nature united with his essence or was It united with divinity (i.e energy)?
My understanding is energy right?
+გიორგი ფოცხვერაშვილი თუ გექნება დისქორდის ანგარიში, სახელი და რიცხვები დაწერე, რომ დაგამატო. მართლმადიდებლური სერვერი გვაქვს და მოგიწვევ.
@@მძლეთამძლე gaixare, orthodox shahadas gulisxmof albat
@@funkmaster5669 არა, ქართველებისაა, თორემ ეგ სერვერი კი ვიცი. დაწერე ბარემ და დაგამატებ, რომ გამოგიგზავნო.
@@მძლეთამძლე ratqmaunda minda Giorgi Fotskhverashvili#7730
Excellent
The inscription from the grotto is incomplete. What you describe as "instructions" is really just one of many plausible reconstructions. All we know for sure is that the image was part of something that held enough significance to include an inscription which was sadly not preserved intact. Not "very clear".
It's a prayer that invokes the holy virgin. More protestant goal post moving
@@shiningdiamond5046 It literally contains only the letter "M", not the full name "Mary". Seems overly hubristic to deny any other possible use of the letter "M" in a broken inscription.
@@k98killer M isn't gonna be Jesus so take by the laws of induction. Typical protestant sophistry
@@shiningdiamond5046 I'm not a Protestant, and your arrogant condescension does not reflect well on your Orthodox brothers. Did not your Savior say, "Blessed are the meek"?
@@k98killer I was meek while you were stiff necked 2 Chronicles 30
The Old Covenant practice has *no bearing* on New Covenant practice. All that was a blueprint, the NC is the building. There's no trace of such a practice in NT writings.
Also the NT canon is mostly Apostles correcting deviant practices among Christians in the *FIRST CENTURY* , so dating a practice as "pre-Nicene" is not a validation of said practice.
Isa 9:6 For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Amazing Adviser, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Joh 14:9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Joh 10:30 The Father and I are one.
Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God - the one who is, and who was, and who is still to come - the All-Powerful!
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”
Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
The images that were in the temples was images of GOD his cheribum, His menorah, His table of show bread, His ark which all is a replica of thw temple in heaven, NONE, I REPEAT NONE were of other men and women and certainly not a photo if you will, they were holy relics, no dead bones of dead saints nothing of human kind
It would be great if honesty prevailed. Icon Veneration is heresy. I wish it wasn't. The early church uniformly condemned it and so did church councils. You have to abandon orthodoxy in order for it to be right because tradition and the councils condemned it.
That is a blatant lie. Early Church was using icons since the times of the Apostles. St. Luke was a first iconographer and St. Peter ordered some to be painted so that he could use them in the teachings. Archeology helps in confirming use of icons since the antiquity. Anathema to all iconoclastic heretics.!
@@johnnyd2383 Here is a space for you to prove your claim that Luke produced an icon,.....
You have nothing!
@@Phill0old St. John of Damascus wrote about it. You do your homework... don't expect me to pamper you. Along the way, you can investigate "Image of Edessa" also.
@@johnnyd2383 Rofl You mean The same John of Damascus who quoted things that don't exist, known forgeries and didn't know the history of those things he said were old examples? Maybe you need to check your data?
@@Phill0old Oh... I forgot your majesty "knows" everything by looking into the crystal ball... You are so (in)significant in my life that I simply did not recognize your majesty comin into play once again..
Many good points. I watch Jays video on the philosophical reasons for veneration. Was very good. Your video here is also very good. Certainly many points from Ortland stand unchallenged and misrepresented, but this video was very good and a good start.
However, as a long searcher into Orthodoxy and icon venerator and wish I was Orthodox already, I want to just say that accidentally misquoting Origen needs to stop. I went and finally read the passage you cited from him because Ortland also quotes it. I have to say it is quite obvious if you actually read it, he is saying Christian temples are our bodies and altar our heart and incense is the Fruit of the Spirit, the virtues, the good deeds we do are Christians.
When you misquote, by accident I'm sure, a passage, it makes one sceptical that the rest of the arguments presented are misquotes and propaganda as well and hurts your argument. I'm sure it was by accident. Im sure this was the only instance of this in your argument, however, now I will be doing my own research on the other passages you presented. Which is a net good I would think.
Origen shouldn't be quoted at all. He should be forgotten.
But the Origen quote about Christians not having images and altars makes little sense because elsewhere he states that Christians do have Altars and Images.
St. Ignatius of Antioch “For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons.” (Epistle to the Philadelphians, ch. 4)
Hebrews 13:10 “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat”
Didache speaks about making a pure sacrifice in the Eucharist, which is why I mentioned the altar association.
The point is the idea that we have no altars is wrong. If Origen (and minucius felix) allegorizes it in opposition to its reality (which he has a massive tendency for it), it's his problem and he's wrong though I believe he is deliberately concealing it so as to prevent the further persecution of Christians, since at his time non-Christians were not allowed to enter Churches. This shows that one of the purposes of his apologetic was against religious syncretism. Scripture clearly says we have an altar, our Churches are temples since they are the body of Christ which is a temple, and they have images which even aniconists agree now if you've noticed.
When you make a long paragraph point about me misquoting, even when you're nice about it, It makes me think you're concern trolling because the quote I posted in the presentation doesn't hide his allegorization.
@@therealMedWhite No I am not trolling. As I said I have icons that I venerate. But I stated what I stated to make sure that there is accountability and that when these arguments are met in people's ears, like my own who are following the debate, that the Orthodox arguments are accurate and powerful because of that. We gain no one or anything by not being true to the context of a passage or to the intent of an author.
Your quote from Ignatius is very good proof of Christian altars and very true. There are also very early house churches that have been found with places for altars and the catacombs as well had places that look like altars.
So I would just read that cited passage from Origen and see for yourself if Origen is talking about Christian temples as not being actual temples like pagan temples and how he contrasts pagan icons with humans as the icon of God. He contrasts with his counterpart on the topic about Icons being humans for we are the image of God, and Christian temples being Christians themselves as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and incense being the virtues and good deeds of a Christian, and every Christian heart is the altar.
Don't read a quoted section from any website. Just read the whole passage and you'll see what is plain.
I just want to be honest about the evidence. And doing so is only for the better. Because if both sides are trying to be honest will come closer to the truth. Which usually is far more complex than we ever anticipate.
Now abetter way to go about this might be to take Origen for what he is saying that he is does reject physical temples and icons and such that he sees as pagan, and then dismiss him as not a saint so it doesn't matter. Or also, note that there is evidence of Christian altars, and house church's that have separate rooms where it seems only litergy was celebrate possibly. And bringing up Ignatius comments about altars. And show that he was more using this line of argument here to exaggerate the difference between pagan and Christian life and worship. Because, surely he was aware of physical Christian altars as Ignatius describes and temple like things in Christian worship as much of litergy mimics the worship from the temple in Jerusalem. So I think there is that line of reasoning to explain it without having to have Origen reject physical temples and the accept them in the same writing.
He obviously clearly rejects them. And the Christian temples he refers to are Christians, icons are humans as the image of God, altars are the Christian heart. Let's all read it, the whole section, see what he's saying and deal with it as it is.
The problem taking Origen as meaning that Christians don’t literally have altars but only spiritual altars is that it kind goes against his own Eucharistic theology in his second homily on the book of Joshua: “You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST.” This is in reference to the assertion made by the book of Hebrews that Christ’s sacrifice does away with the sacrifice of Animals and instead sanctifies our altars for the offering of bread and wine.
@@justin_messer ya good point. What I saying is bring up points like yours to make the point that he could be using the line of logic he does not because Christian temples icons or altars don't exist but to exaggerate the difference between pagan life and worship and Christian life and worship.
So we can all agree that Origen was not saying there are no altars, temples, icons, but that he was using language and rhetoric that took a different route to explain different aspects of Christian life and worship without having to take quotes out of context. Thats what I am saying. And I think this thread is useful with comments about altars from Ignatius and your point about his comments on altars (which I haven't read but I will take your word on it) to show that it's unlikely he really didn't know of any Christian altars, temples, or icons. But he was instead using a line of rhetoric to make a point about the difference between the Christians and pagans. We just have to take the sources for what they are saying and not misquote them because it undermines our argument.
Deuteronomy 4:15-16.
Oh wow a prescription around making a god out of the visible celestial forms who would have thought.
Protestants' iconoclasm has underlying Gnosticism as basis.
Amen.
First
11:49- 11:52 Watch out Eminem!
This pic of the ppl prostrating before the Ark is just a bad argument I wish Orthodox would quit appealing to. The very presence of the Lord would be there between the Cherubim above the Ark as the scriptures say. So they are clearly prostrating before the presence of God, not the surrounding furniture. I'm seeking and open minded but these "proofs" leave me shaking my head.
It is good to see you being open minded. But, consider this... Orthodox icons theology states that our reverence in front of the icon is transferred to the person depicted on it, and if it is an icon of the Lord, we are prostrating before the Lord, if it is an icon of Saint(s), according to the (Gal 2,20) "it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me", we are prostrating to the Lord again. How different it is from the OT prostrations before the Ark.?
The word Iconophobe is very gay and SJW.
second
pure idolatry not icons!