Printable View
Not to mention that Christ said very clearly "the gate of hell cannot prevail against the church". By claiming that the early centuries were in error and only his presbyterian sect is correct basics is calling God a liar because it would mean that for 17 centuries the gates of hell did in fact prevail against the church.
Inner christian struggles...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It's not much of an inner Christian struggle Morticia. First off it's a fundamental difference in world view that can be extrapolated across religions (e.g. Islam) and also outside it, and secondly even atheists are, however enlightened they might think themselves to be, fundamentally irrational human beings whose conceptualisations are building on the culture they are part of. Cultures and conceptualisations in which religions play a very major part. Religion is one of the human universals, with every culture having adopted them and many of them following a very similar trajectory.
The "there's only one god and anthropomorphising god is silly" observation is documented as far back as the 6th century BC:
Evolution has primed us as social animals, not as abstract thinkers. It's with this wiring in mind that you can see how anthropomorphising the unpredictable becomes a very useful thing, like sailors still do today with their ships and the sea. You first define the subject and then try to collect your observations of said subjects behaviour as it's "character".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragments of Xenophanes
The very early Greeks thus basically ascribed to every spring, river, lake, etc. a god.
Further on in the civilisation chain you can see the individual smaller gods playing less and less and less of a role, and being replaced by a very select few ones. But there were already a bunch a people ahead of the crowd who slimmed it down to just one.
When Christianity then started to really kick in all across the Roman empire, it wasn't the only one going for the monotheism. Sol Invictus, the Isis cult and Judaism (which also mass converted people and competed with what was then widely considered its sect for new members) all clearly show that the Greco-Roman world had a hard time really believing in its polytheistic world. For the reasons Xenophanes outlined earlier. It is there Xenophanes really comes into play.
The bible and Torah are both simultaneously very vague and at the same time actually quite clear on what god is and what he isn't. He is not an old man in the sky. He is defined by omnipotency, omnipresence and omniscience. That's downright it. In the Torah you also see god feature heavily behind the natural forces, and thus by necessity becomes quite vengeful, as whenever nature surprises you it rarely tends to be in a good way, but that role diminishes over the time, nor does it characterise god himself, contrary to how so many people claim. The "In the beginning was logos, and the logos was with god, and god was the logos" beginning of the John evangelium crowns this development.
So here's already the first big divergence between basics on the one hand and me on the other, which should be very apparent, which is how we go about religion.
The next issue and again it is not really inner-christian from my point of view, is that this same difference can be seen between eastern and western churches when it comes to communication.
Humans don't simply communicate by speech alone, in fact, for the longest part of our history we had no words at all. Our communication thus heavily involves our other senses as well.
Catholics and especially protestants have thrown that one out as well. Orthodox churches on the other hand not only still have the same liturgy as standardised in the 4th century (which in turn also wasn't simply made up then but reflects the liturgies that had been practiced in all the prior centuries), and any orthodox can thus go to an orthodox service in a different country with a completely different language, understand not a single word of what's being said, and still be well aware of what is going on and what the current prayer is about. All the "idolatry" that basics is fiercely against for quite irrational reasons is there for very good reasons.
It's like telling someone that washing your hands is good for you, with the person not understanding why and then deciding to be extra thorough by scrubbing all the skin off.
Sir Adrian,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Adrian
I do not imply that at all but I do claim that what is written is that many will come in the name of Jesus proclaiming a Gospel that is no Gospel at all them claiming to be the church when they are not. Jesus elaborates on this by His parables of the wheat and tares as well as the sheep and goats. The elect of God are the church. That is only them born again of the Spirit of God and not even hell could prevail against them, why? Because nothing could ever snatch them from the hand of God. The path to heaven is so narrow that few get in and so if few get in the implication is that many more won't. Now my little Presbyterian sect, me being a Baptist, was born out of the errors of Rome by Luther, Calvin, Knox and others to make simple what the Scriptures said and so it is on this the Scriptures that God has led me to trust and believe. The Word of God is the bread of life quite dependent to whom God gives it.
Some more excerpts that may interest you:Quote:
Originally Posted by basics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint John Damascene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint John Damascene
St. John also provides us with some quotes by respected Church Fathers. Seeing how you also appreciate the value of pious men and what they had to say, I think these will be of interest to you:
Quote:
St Denis the Areopagite. From his Letter to Bishop Titus.
Instead of attaching the common conception to images, we should look upon what they symbolise, and not despise the divine mark and character which they portray, as sensible images of mysterious and heavenly visions.
Commentary.—Mark that he cautions us not to despise sacred images.
Quote:
Leo Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus. From his book against the Jews, on the Adoration of the Cross, and the Statues of the Saints, and on Relics.
If you, O Jew, reproach me saying that I adore the wood of the Cross as God, why do you not reproach Jacob, who worshipped on the point of his staff (ἐπὶ τό ἄκρον τῆς ρἁβδου)? Now it is evident that he was not worshipping wood. So with us; we are worshipping Christ through the Cross, not the wood of the Cross.
Commentary.—If we adore the Cross, made of whatever wood it may be, how shall we not adore the image of the Crucified?
Finally:Quote:
St Leontius of Naples, in Cyprus, against the Jews—Book v.
Enter then heartily into our apology for the making of sacred images, so that the mouths of foolish people speaking injustice may be closed. This tradition comes from the old law, not from us. Listen to God’s command to Moses that he should make two cherubim wrought in metal to overshadow the propitiatory. And again, God showed the temple to Ezechiel, with its carved faces of lions, forms of palms and men from floor to ceiling. The command is truly awe-inspiring. God, who enjoins Israel not to make any graven thing, likeness or image of anything in heaven or on earth, also orders Moses to make carved cherubim. God shows the temple to Ezechiel, full of images and sculptured likenesses of lions, palms, and men. And Solomon, in conformity to the law, filled the temple with metal figures of oxen, palms, and men, and God did not reproach him for it. Now, if you wish to reproach me concerning images, you condemn God, who ordered these things to be made that they might remind us of Himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint John Damascene
Regarding the history of the iconoclastic controversy:
For what it's worth, my position on images was best expressed by Philip Melanchthon:Quote:
That history is usefully summarized by Kallistos Ware, a Greek Orthodox theologian, historian, and apologist. First he recognizes the absence of icons in early Christian history: “Early Christian art – as found, for example, in the Roman catacombs – showed a certain reluctance to portray Christ directly, and He was most often represented in symbolical form….With the conversion of Constantine and the progressive disappearance of paganism, the Church grew less hesitant in its employment of art, and by A.D. 400 it had become an accepted practice to represent our Lord not just through symbols but directly. At this date, however, there is as yet no evidence to suggest that the pictures in church were venerated or honoured with any outward expressions of devotion. They were not at this period objects of cult, but their purpose was decorative and instructional. Even in this restricted form, however, the use of icons aroused protests on the part of certain fourth-century writers….”66
Another distinguished historian, Jaroslav Pelikan, who was a Lutheran, but later became Eastern Orthodox, wrote even more strongly about the teaching of the early ancient church. Pelikan insisted that the written witness of the ancient fathers of the church was unanimous through the fourth century against the use of images of God or Christ.67 This means that there was no written, theological defense of images for four centuries, indeed quite the opposite.
Second, Ware acknowledges the rather late development of iconodule practice: “Not until the period following Justinian – during the years 550-650 – did the veneration of icons in churches and private homes become widely accepted in the devotional life of eastern Christians. By the years 650-700 the first attempts were made by Christian writers to provide a doctrinal basis for this growing cult of icons and to formulate a Christian theology of art….The veneration of icons was not accepted everywhere without opposition….The ensuing controversy falls into two main periods: the first phase, 726-780; and the revival of iconoclasm, 815-42.”68 Ware seems clearly to recognize that the veneration of icons was neither apostolic nor very ancient.
Third, he notes that iconodule practice was far from universal on the eve of the controversy: “…the cult of icons which grew up from the middle of the sixth century onwards was by no means universal throughout the Byzantine world at the start of the eighth. If the icons were highly popular in certain circles – at Constantinople, above all among the lower classes, and also in Greece and in most monasteries – they were viewed with far greater reserve by many Christians in Asia Minor.”69
...
Orthodoxy does not embrace a doctrine of evolving tradition, but rather upholds only unwritten apostolic tradition. For example, Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote in his influential Confession (1672): “For so both the custom obtaining in the Church from Apostolic times of adoring the holy Eikons relatively is maintained, and the worship of latria reserved for God alone….”86
The historical evidence for such apostolic practice and tradition is entirely lacking. As Ware wrote: “They [the iconoclasts] were archaists and reactionaries rather than innovators; their aim was to preserve, or rather to revive, an older tradition of Christian art which relied upon symbolic motifs and did not portray our Lord directly.”87
Sources:
- Kallistos Ware, “Christian Theology in the East 600-1453,” in A History of Christian Doctrine, ed. by H. Cunliffe-Jones, Philadelphia (Fortress Press), 1978
- Jaroslav Pelikan, Imago Dei, Princeton, New Jersey (Princeton University Press), 1990
Quote:
Images of Christ and of the saints, that is, representations of their story by means of paintings and the like in churches and elsewhere, have, as Gregory says, been the books of the illiterate, that is, they explain the story like a written book. In itself this is a matter of indifference concerning which Christians should not quarrel.
Since, then, such representation provides for the illiterate the advantage of seeing and learning the stories as if from books, we do not reject pictures in themselves, nor do we abolish them; we do, however, reprove their misuse.
For we teach that images are not to be worshipped; nor is it to be thought that they have power; nor should people think that setting up images of God or of the saints is serving God, or that God is more gracious or does more than otherwise if He is invoked before such an image.
For God wants men to grasp Him only in faith through His Word and His sacraments; therefore it is a godless error to bind God to certain images without God’s Word. It is also a wicked error to think that a deed performed in front of such an image pleases God more than if done elsewhere; for we should believe that God in all places hears those who earnestly call upon Him. Hence Isaiah [66:1] reproves those who do not believe that God everywhere hears those who call upon Him in true spiritual worship, for he says that, even though the heaven is the Lord’s throne, yet God dwells “in him that is poor and of a contrite spirit”. Christ says [John 4:21, 23]: “Ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father…but…in spirit and in truth,” and Paul says [1 Tim. 2:8]: “I will that men pray everywhere”.
-Wittenberg Articles: Article XVII. Images
Philip Melancthon is widely known as the guy who failed to understand icons in their most basic sense, even after the patriarch of Constantinople had them explained to him.
You will be surpriced but Icons were restored thanks to a Pope.
The main argument (in simpliest language) was that in the east with huge Hellenic populations and populations with hellenic education , icons were not neccesary because the language could express very complicated meanings (how do you explain to a humble folk that the God is one and Three the same time?). While traditional Christians in the east (Antioch, Alexandreia, Jerusaleem and Cinstantinople insisted that icons can easily become objects of worship ) in the west Popes needed a tool to try to teach people Christian Faith. Icons were the eaisest way because none outside Rome's limits spoke Laton but german and germanic languages lack the extented vocabulary to express complicated meanings.
I feel this advice is useful for all Christians of all denominations
Sir Adrian,
The first thing that comes to mind is that when asked how to pray Jesus answered, " Our Father....." so when in prayer that's how I begin. " Heavenly Father, Lord Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit I thank you for being God, my God, for there is no other except in the imagination of men. I thank you for the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ through which or Whom a filthy sinner like me could be saved. My sin is ever before me and so I need Your help to make me more like Jesus and less like me. As my race is almost over I ask that you bless me with strength and vigour to express what Jesus has done for me to all them that do not know Him as their Lord and Saviour for every breath that is left in me is Yours. I ask these things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ Whose name is above all others, now and forever more. Amen,"
I believe that God wants to know what your troubles are in as simple a way as possible and so that's how I pray never losing sight as to Whom I am praying and how fearful that can be.
Sir Adrian,
Sounds very beautiful as well as religious but I'm afraid I haven't a clue as to what they are saying.
The words are
Quote:
"We, who mystically represent the Cherubim, And chant the thrice-holy hymn to the Life-giving Trinity, Let us set aside the cares of life That we may receive the King of all, Who comes invisibly escorted by the Divine Hosts."
Who is it that represent the Cherubim? Where does it say that the divine host will be invisible at the return of Jesus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Adrian
1. when an Orthodox Christian prays, or a service is held, it does not happen in a void or or alone. The person joins to choirs of angels and saints in heaven. The church itself is comprised not just of people who identify as orthodox on Earth but of every single angel and every single person to have ever ascended to heaven (saint = someone we know for sure is in heaven). The choir you hear in Orthodox services here on earth is a pale representation of choirs of angels that sing in heaven.
2. Literalism is not something we do. The verse does not reference the second coming. Moreover can you see angels? I can't.
It is written that a man must be born again of the Spirit of God to enter heaven so my question is how do the Orthodox get born again?
You see, Basics? This is what I was refering to in that other thread, about Aramaic speakers.
By following the teachings of Christ and striving to emulate Him every day. Being born again isn't some thing you do once and you're in the clear forever. It means constantly renouncing the material world and yourself. It's a lifelong process.Quote:
Originally Posted by basics
I can see demons Sir. No angels yet.