I found this video to be incredibly valuable and profound as a new Orthodox Christian myself. I am very saddened to see where Frank Schaeffer currently stands. Please pray for him. Lord have mercy on us all.
My husband is Roman Catholic and I am Protestant. We are currently attending an Orthodox Church to discern if we both should join Orthodoxy. Mr. Schaeffer’s talks are so convincing and so clear. It has really helped me grow closer towards the decision to become Orthodox. I am so sorry to read on these comments that Mr. Schaeffer has fallen from the beliefs that he so passionately espoused. I pray he finds his way back.
It's such a pity Mr Schaeffer no longer seems to have much of a faith worthy of the name , as I've found these videos very helpful. I pray he finds his way back to what he used to believe, because his logic here is so clear. By contrast, these days he seems to be a rather confused man poisoned by hate and unbelief.
Interesting that at 24 minutes in, he says that if you ask him, "Frank, do you really believe all of this stuff all of the time", that he would say "no". Frank Schaeffer endures a lot of criticism these days for his beliefs, but even in the 1990s, he was honest about his doubts. I have to respect that.
Thanks for this. I am not Orthodox or Christian, but the evidence for religious images in early Christian practice is quite evident (as you suggest). There are good theological reasons for using religious images, as well, especially due to the incarnation. The Iconoclast/Icondule debate was conditioned by the proximity of Islam, who heavily polemicised against the use of images. The icondules prevailed for christological reasons, for it defends the incarnation.
The Jew understands the difference between veneration and worship. A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tallerin, before he binds them to his forehead and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, the Christians did likewise when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue. The early Christians also understood these distinctions as well.
Prior to the Iconoclastic controversy, there is extensive archeological evidence that Icons were used throughout the Church, and were this a departure from Apostolic Traditions we should expect to find a huge controversy on the subject from the very moment that Icons first came into use, which would have only intensified as their use became more common. We find nothing of the sort.
The issue with the 2nd Commandment is what does the word translated"graven images" mean? It simply means carved images.If it meant any images then the images in the Temple would be in violation of the Commandment. The cherubim in the Temple would be in violation of this Commandment.
Jewish Holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them, they contain illustrations of Biblical scenes much like those found at the Synagogue of Dora Europos and like the church near by. The earliest Icons of the catacombs were mostly of the Old Testament scenes and Icons of Christ.The Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a pagan practice Christianized by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by Christians.
The statement from Elvira is clear, concise and reasonably restricted to churches: "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration." Obviously, you can't "venerate" an image that isn't even allowed in the church. The question isn't how it is to be interpreted. The question is whether you accept the true Apostolic Tradition or not. The Second Commandment is likewise clear. The question is: Will you obey it?
It's likely because he mostly intellectualized Christianity. Intellectualizing faith is like conceptualizing food when you're hungry. You'll eventually starve.
The wording of this canon is almost certainly not a blanket ban on images. It is not clear what it is banning, and to what end. The fact is that Icons were in use in Spanish churches before the Synod and they continued to be in use after the Synod, without any further evidence of controversy. The Synod was of a purely local character, and was never affirmed on a Ecumenical level. It's decisions had nothing to do with the entire church, and is used as a weak ploy against Icons.
Protestants tend to absolutize the Bible & forget that it is only a part of the divine revelation to men. They view it as a "brain" that collects information about God that Christians need to study intellectually to be saved. They forgot that the mystery of God is ineffable & men are saved by their personal relationship to God. Besides, the Church existed before the writing of the books of the New Testament and the apostles themselves make clear that the Word of God is not run out in some books.
It's historical evidence about what the early church really practiced. They did NOT allow pictures in the church. Eusebius and Epiphanius and the Talmudic tradition against images and the Roman accusation of being atheists show the same thing. The Second Commandment does NOT just apply to graven images. Notice the "OR": "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."
From more recent statements he seems to have turned his back on the idea of a divinely inspired Bible and Holy Tradition entirely. He's coupled this with continuous teeth-grinding over certain Republican politicians. It seems like he is a very unhappy man, and Orthodoxy has not worked out for him the way he wanted it to. A great shame.
Christians pray in the presence of Icons, just as the Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple, but we pray do not pray to the image. Christian iconography expresses in Holy Images the same Gospel message that Scriptures communicates by words. Christians pay respect to Icons because they are Holy objects, and because we revere what the Icon depicts.
Since great Fathers like Photius accept Augustine's sainthood, who are we to deny such thing? Augustine lived a complex life & tried to understand the faith & express it without knowing greek (not that greek is a divine language, but without it he could not read all the great patristic works, the consensus patrum). He is a saint b/c he didn't know that some of his ideas were misbeliefs; heretics are they who even when a saint or a synod show them their mistakes continue & remain unrepentant.
He didn't replace it with one with an image. He specifically said, in that account that such images are against our "religion". Elvira is evidence of what the early church thought of icons. The later "Orthodox" broke with the Apostolic Tradition and their claim to have preserved the practices of the early church are clearly spurious. The claim that "veneration and respect" is something other than worship is, like the claim to have preserved the practices of the early church, a lie.
100% incorrect. The iconoclast heresy that infected Christianity and Judaism in the middle ages was Islamic in origin. The Tabernacle and Temples were full of holy images, as are the oldest preserved synagogues, as are the oldest church buildings.
How is the Elvira council Apostolic Tradition? Apostolic Tradition is what had been handed down by the original Apostles. Was Elvira handed down by the Twelve? As far as you using the 2nd Commandment, you are interpreting it the way you want to. It refers to graven images. The Hebrews who translated the Bible into Greek translated the word " eidoloi" which is idols. If your translation is correct, then, any image regardless of what or whom would be against the Commandment.
Some cite other Fathers and early writers of the Church to support their positions. Most of these quotations simply denounce idolatry, and have nothing to do with Icons. In a few cases the quotes could plausibly be interpreted as condemning Icons, a consistent interpretation would require that no images be made at all. The objection in these texts is to the making of and possession of images, and yet none addresses the question of veneration. Canon 36 , Elvira, is a weak excuse against Icons.
You simply don't understand. The Bible is not opposed to art. It is opposed to exactly what the "orthodox" do with art in worship, that they turn images into idols and worship them (and then lie about it.) The Second Commandment: "“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, . ." (Ex. 20:4ff).
You make a few controversial claims here but without giving any supporting evidence. I am not sure how much history you know, but I'll assume that you know something. There was a great debate in the Church regarding icons (which just means "image"). Those who were in favour of icons recognised that since God had become human in Jesus Christ it was now possible to depict the divine. The Iconclasts (those against icons) were influenced by Muslims who deby the Incarnation. Be careful.
I am not Orthodox and I am not even Christian; but I notice that you (who claims to be Christian) is certainly not acting in accordance with your faith. The fact is that we have images of Christ and Mary from the 2nd to 4th centuries. The Christians who were against the use of images were mainly influenced by Jewish beliefs and practices. You also need to show why images of Christ should be prohibited given the incarnation. Your self-rigeousness does you no credit.
You didn't answer who chose these certain books as parts of the NT. Do you have any evidence it was the 12? The texts of various saints that were used by the council of Hiereia were manhandled. In the VII Oec. Synod these texts were read full & not cut & adulterated. Eg read about Amphilochius's works in Mansi, 13:301-305. Do you have the records of the council? Epiphanius' letter was considered false and ofc it says that all the Church Fathers didn't agree to destroy the icons.
If you don't consider Orthodoxy to be the real Church, how do you accept the biblical canon? Don't you know it was developed by Athanasius and other orthodox saints? The Bible doesn't say how many books it contains and which are these books. I repeat that in Church history there were a lot of synods that decided wrong things that the Christians as a total didn't accept. Why do you call upon this minor council (who issued the celibacy of the clergy too) and not the great VII Oecumenical Synod?
It must be easy for you to comment, you just copy+paste. About the Bible, I ask you directly: Do you believe that it was written by MEN and certainly some yrs after the Pentecost? Answer with YES or NO. And what do you mean "given by God"? A parchment fell from heaven? Christ left behind him his disciples (the first Church) and no written texts. The "information" about Epiphanius is taken from the records of the second council of Nicaea. Do you know anything about them?
That's false. The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) does not just prohibit "graven images." It specifically says, "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". "OR": You shall not make a graven (3 dimensional) image OR any other kind of image, and this, for the use in worship. The "Orthodox" therefore clearly violate. OR!
What is your point? Epiphanius replaced the torn veil after the people complained that it was destroyed. It was one incident, and did not change the course of the early church on icons. Elvira wasn't the only council or synod at that time, and Elvira's decisions have nothing to do with Apostolic Traditions of the early church. These events had no impact on the rest of the church.You are purposely confusing "worship and adoration" with "veneration and respect".
1. The Bible contains books written by men who tried to explain with our incomplete human language the mysteries of God. See what Paul says about his vision: 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. 2. Jesus says that you must not manhandle his parents, because that's against what God said (to Moses etc). What this have to do with the biblical canon? 3. Your juridicalism doesn't let you see that a council becomes valid if the God's people accepts it. The councils of Elvira, 2nd of Ephesus, Florence aren't valid.
That's false. First, there aren't that many pictures in catacombs in the first place, mostly in Rome. Second, the catacombs were burial places, not churches. So they aren't relevant to this; "icons" are symbols used in worship, i.e. in churches. The evidence is clear that the early church was strictly opposed to such things. Third, that you confuse "that which we have seen with our eyes" (The Apostle John's experience of actually seeing Jesus) with your icons, proves that the icons are idols.
Actually, do a study of what the Talmud (the Jewish tradition) says about the use of images in worship. I posted direct quotes from it elsewhere. The Jewish tradition, like the Apostolic Tradition, is strictly opposed to the use of icons in worship. What you describe isn't even comparable to the use of icons. Your suggestions otherwise are just more "Orthodox" fiction, directly contrary to the clear, written evidence of Elvira, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and the facts of history.
You are basing your argument on weak points and missing the real issue. One small local council or even several doesn't carry any more authority than one Father or even several . It is the consensus of the Fathers , in light of the Ecumenical Councils that carry the final word on these or any other issues. Elvira was not an Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition is from the original Twelve Apostles.
You are quite right. This guy is very deceptive and refuses to tell me what sect he belongs to. He repeats the same narrow minded nonsense, refusing to see the whole picture.
Veneration and respect has nothing to do with worship. You are out to confuse terminology. The archeological findings in certain area that contained Christian images proves that the early church did allow images and the fact that this continued throughout the Christian Empire. You conveniently dismiss the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which included the entire church and made the final decisions concerning church matters or controversies.
The Bible was given by the Lord Jesus. He affirmed the OT and appointed the Apostles, who were guided by the Holy Spirit. That's why the Lord Jesus told us to put the Word of God over tradition when there is a conflict (Mt. 15:6). I believe your citation of Athanasius is wrong. Give me an actual quote with a verifiable, primary source. Elvira, Eusebius, and Epiphanius are proof of what the early church actually practiced and they show that the early church did not tolerate icons.
Constantine wasn't cruel, you commit the serious mistake of anachronism. Constantine was a man of his age, a great & genius politician who saved thousands of people from the persecutions, brought tolerance & revivified his empire so that it may last for 1,000+ yrs. Also note that, for the Orthodox Church, sainthood is neither morality nor an externally certified condition, but God's gift/revelation. There are a lot of saints (Moses the Black, James the Ascetic, the Good Thief) who were criminals
Manichean Gnosticism... once again, evidence that Augustine planted an egg in the western church. Why this man was declared a Saint is beyond me. "You shall know a tree by the fruit it bears." Augustine rejected the old Jewish understanding of the Word of God, supplanted the old Orthodox teaching of the trinity, said that Mary was one the level of a goddess, not just the Theotokos, said anything to do with the flesh is evil (including sexual relations between spouses), and no free will.
The Lord Jesus told us the Bible is "the Word of God" and that it is pre-eminent over tradition. "So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God." (Mt. 15:6). The church, as in all of creation, was called into being by the Word of God. The "orthodox" broke away from the pattern of the early church. The Council of Elvira states, "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration." (36)
To recognize sth means to find it there and accept it. The Church didn't find the NT there, it began in Pentecost and existed for several yrs without texts. The NT books were written later and BY the Church members. Clear? Epiphanius' letter was considered false b/c: He had written an analysis of every falsification of the faith & didn't refer to icons as one. All his other works are well known except for this Nobody until the 8th cent used this letter His students built a temple with icons
You think Elvira is "weak" because you don't really accept the traditions of the early church. I guess you think Epiphanius (Letter 51, c. 394) is weak too: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints;. . . . Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder . . . .
That's just baloney. "Worship" is giving "worth." You give worth to the images, so you are worshiping them, in the church, and thus committing idolatry. It's like saying sex with your mistress has nothing to do with adultery. It's just the lie that they teach you to excuse their sin. God makes the final decisions. Only an idolatrous man-follower would say that a council makes the final decisions. Besides, which "ecumenical councils": the 754 "Seventh Ecumenical Council" that condemned icons?
I'm giving verifiable facts of history: Elvira, Eusebius, Epiphanius, etc. It doesn't matter if later man-followers considered the council authoritative or not. Idolaters always look for an institution or a visible thing to follow. Elvira, Eusebius, Epiphanius, etc., is historical proof of what the practice of the early church was. And it was totally opposed to the use of images in the church. Therefore, the "Orthodox" claim to have preserved the Apostolic Tradition is demonstrably false.
The Elvira council was held somewhere in Spain, far from the eastern where the true Faith in Christ was lived. In the contrary, those from Elvira Council abandoned the custom of the originar Church as Icons were painted and used in the Church from the beginnings, fact which caused the Eastern Curch to not recognise that pretended council and even some western clerics declared it heretical. I post links which prove Apostle Luke painted numerous icons: www.wherewewalked.info/Luke/lukeicons.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luke_painting_the_Virgin aleteia.org/2017/10/18/4-icons-of-mary-attributed-to-st-luke-the-evangelist/ Give up your sect invented by a man 500 years ago and join the Church founded by the Apostles of Christ almost 2000 years ago. Yes, we're praising God thru the Holy Liturgy as was left written to us by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, the Holy Evangelium is enchanted too, we confess our sins and we recieve the Holy Eucharist as Christ said to His Apostles we shall do in His rememberance, partaking His Holy Flesh and Blood, we praise and worship God in the Holy Trinity also thru icons thru which God works wonders even nowadays, healings of cancers, instantly melting of tumors of last stage and what not, many icons were seen shading tears and many more wonders are provided, because God loves His Saints, while you play guitar, chat and joke in your protestant buildings, you do worldly things for you ain't got no Sacraments, you don't know better, nothing left by Christ and His Apostles, sola scriptura from which a sect pastor from time to time reads some passages. Your sect is a worldly institution where you do your worldly deeds and gestures. Answer for l answered to your claims, so answer too, are dancing and playing guitar and orchestra, telling jokes and laughing used and addmited forms of worship in the Early Church..? And if they aren't, why do your pretended church do such petty and blasfemious things..? What you pretend church is actualy a sect invented by a man almost 1500 years after the Church of Christ was established by His Apostles. And many members of that sect criticise the custom in our Early Church, the icons, even if Apostle Luke painted icons, but your sectants laugh and play instruments, dance and flirt, gossip too in the buildings you call church, the pot calling the kettle black... But pot would still be ok, dark tools of devil are those who bare false witness against the Church of Christ. l have shown to you that your sect, (the protestant invented by a man over 1400 years after the Apostles of Christ founded the Orthodox Church in Eastern) are using blasfemious means, as telling jokes and laughing, playing guitar and such worldly deeds which aren't accepted by the early church so what are you ranting, pretending we'd have a straw in our eye while you have a beam in your eye..? So first remove that beam from your eye, which means, do in such manner that your sect stops telling jokes, laughing and playing instruments in your so called churches and afterwards let's talk about the icons. Year 726 - Hagia Sophia was stripped of religious illustrations and sculptural work with the abolition of veneration of icons (iconoclasm). Year 842 - Veneration of icons was finally reinstituted, commencing the redecoration of Hagia Sophia.
Robert Dumicz : The early church strictly prohibited icons. 1. The early church interpreted the second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) as prohibiting making an image and bowing to it. There are no icons in the Bible. 2. You cannot produce one valid example of anyone from the early church teaching for icons or using them. Not one Christian before AD 500. 3. Tertullian defended the proposition of “similitude being interdicted” (images are prohibited). The image of the serpent in the wilderness was an “extraordinary precept” (i.e. a rare exception). He wrote that we are only allowed to follow suit if, like Moses, God has bidden us to do so. He required all artists to stop making images in order to be accepted into the church. (Tertullian, Idol. 5 (www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm)) 4. Your claims about the translation of Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira are false. You try to obfuscate the subject by arguing about the translation. Some claim the standard translation-“Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration”-is inaccurate. Eastern Orthodox scholar Bigham, among others, suggests the following translation: “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.” While this debate on the precise translation may create a sense of uncertainty about what canon 36 actually says, none of the proposed translations changes the two relevant statements: that pictures were not allowed in churches (a moderate aniconism) and that the Synod of Elvira did not want what is “worshipped and adored” depicted in images. Karl Josef von Hefele (1809-1893), a German Roman Catholic church historian and bishop, quotes the original Latin (placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur) and comments that “these canons are easy to understand” and that “the ancient church did not tolerate images” and that “the prohibition conceived is in very general terms.” 5. Irenaeus, (ca. 130-202) spoke admirably of art, “a beautiful image of a king . . . constructed by some skillful artist,” on the other he says this of the Gnostic Carpocratians use of icons: "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles. " Notice that crowning and honoring of the images, “after the same manner of the Gentiles,” means that they are being used not simply as decorations but as icons.
6. Origen, quoted above, condemns icons. The orthodoxy (or heterodoxy) of Origen’s theology is not relevant to the validity of the historical data he provides. Origen’s contribution to this investigation is not theological but as evidence to the practice of early Christian worship. Even if he had been fully condemned as a heretic, why would he misrepresent the lack of images in Christian worship? In fact, Origen’s apologetic to Celsus was typical for the early church. Explaining the absence of images in Christian worship was a staple of other early church apologists, including Marcus Minucius Felix (d. ca. 250) and Anthengoras (ca. 133-190). Romans frequently considered the lack of religious images among Christians as prima facie evidence of atheism. These apologists were at pains to explain that was not so. Like Celsus, Marcus Minucius Felix’s fictional polytheist, Caecilius Natalis attacked Christians for lacking images in worship. The fictional Caecilius Natalis, asks, “Why do [Christians] have no alters, no temples, no public images?” 7. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) About the year 327 Eusebius, who lived in Jerusalem, received a letter from the emperor’s sister, Constantia, asking him for a picture of Christ. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such images are inadequate and tend to idolatry. He reports that a woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but she claimed were images of Paul and Christ. He confiscated them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or others. He reminds Constantia that the Apostle Paul declares his intention of “knowing Christ no longer after the flesh.” Eusebius wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image. “To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error.” Hence Jaroslav Pelikan, a former Lutheran pastor who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, calls Eusebius “the father of iconoclasm.”. 8. I proved above that Epiphanius' Epiphanius, Letter 51, is indeed authentic and that your claims otherwise are lies. Here's what Epiphanius said about icons: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” 9. The Luke fable: the claim that Luke painted the first icons appears to be from the sixth century at the earliest. Later authors, like Theodore Anagnostes (died after 527) supposedly reported about Eudocia, the wife of emperor Theodosian II (408-450), sending to Pulcheria (399-453) from Jerusalem the icon of “the Mother of God” depicted by “the Apostle Luke.” However, other sources claim that the earliest attestation of the supposed icon of Mary by Luke is from Andrew of Crete (ca. 712-740). There is no evidence of the claim of icons by Luke in the early church. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) wrote that no one knew the appearance of Jesus or that of Mary. “For neither do we know the countenance of the Virgin Mary.” It is highly unlikely that a bishop as erudite as Augustine would be ignorant of the claim of an eyewitness rendition of Mary if that claim had originated by his time. Bissera V. Pentcheva concludes, “The myth [of Luke painting an icon] was invented in order to support the legitimacy of icon veneration during the Iconoclast controversy [8th and 9th centuries]. By claiming the existence of a portrait of the Theotokos painted during her lifetime by the evangelist Luke, the perpetrators of this fiction fabricated evidence for the apostolic origins and divine approval of images.” 10. You presented false evidence, with Pseudo-Basil which everyone knows is false. The existence of a “Pseudo-Basil” has long been known, so that even John Calvin references “Pseudo-Basil” twice in his Institutes (IV.5.8n23, IV.13.8n12). Pseudo-Basil was a devotee of Thecla, a reported follower of Paul according to the late second century text “Acts of Paul and Thecla.” The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that some of the letters attributed to Basil are “probably apocryphal.” Andrew Louth states that several of Basil’s letters are “spurious.” Further, the language of letter 360, apparently addressed to no one in particular, betrays a later date, like near the iconoclastic controversy. First, we know from the other evidence of the early church that at least significant parts of the church prohibited icons, and so the assertion that iconography, which is what is described in the honoring and kissing of the images, is “not forbidden” is false. Further, if iconography was really “handed down” from the beginning and ubiquitous, as the letter claims, why would Basil state the obvious? That is, why would an ancient Christian write to another about a supposedly ancient, pervasive Christian practice stating that it “not forbidden,” if everyone knew it was not forbidden? When we do ever defend ancient, widespread Christian practices, like singing? The letter has the sound of evidence created after the fact. István M. Bugár concludes that letter 360 is “anachronistic” and is so widely doubted that it “does not feature in most collections” of Basil’s letters.
@@yeoberry The Elvira council was held somewhere in Spain, far from the eastern where the true Faith in Christ was lived. In the contrary, those from Elvira Council abandoned the custom of the originar Church as Icons were painted and used in the Church from the beginnings, fact which caused the Eastern Curch to not recognise that pretended council and even some western clerics declared it heretical. I post links which prove Apostle Luke painted numerous icons: www.wherewewalked.info/Luke/lukeicons.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luke_painting_the_Virgin aleteia.org/2017/10/18/4-icons-of-mary-attributed-to-st-luke-the-evangelist/ Give up your sect invented by a man 500 years ago and join the Church founded by the Apostles of Christ almost 2000 years ago. Yes, we're praising God thru the Holy Liturgy as was left written to us by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, the Holy Evangelium is enchanted too, we confess our sins and we recieve the Holy Eucharist as Christ said to His Apostles we shall do in His rememberance, partaking His Holy Flesh and Blood, we praise and worship God in the Holy Trinity also thru icons thru which God works wonders even nowadays, healings of cancers, instantly melting of tumors of last stage and what not, many icons were seen shading tears and many more wonders are provided, because God loves His Saints, while you play guitar, chat and joke in your protestant buildings, you do worldly things for you ain't got no Sacraments, you don't know better, nothing left by Christ and His Apostles, sola scriptura from which a sect pastor from time to time reads some passages. Your sect is a worldly institution where you do your worldly deeds and gestures. Answer for l answered to your claims, so answer too, are dancing and playing guitar and orchestra, telling jokes and laughing used and addmited forms of worship in the Early Church..? And if they aren't, why do your pretended church do such petty and blasfemious things..? What you pretend church is actualy a sect invented by a man almost 1500 years after the Church of Christ was established by His Apostles. And many members of that sect criticise the custom in our Early Church, the icons, even if Apostle Luke painted icons, but your sectants laugh and play instruments, dance and flirt, gossip too in the buildings you call church, the pot calling the kettle black... But pot would still be ok, dark tools of devil are those who bare false witness against the Church of Christ. l have shown to you that your sect, (the protestant invented by a man over 1400 years after the Apostles of Christ founded the Orthodox Church in Eastern) are using blasfemious means, as telling jokes and laughing, playing guitar and such worldly deeds which aren't accepted by the early church so what are you ranting, pretending we'd have a straw in our eye while you have a beam in your eye..? So first remove that beam from your eye, which means, do in such manner that your sect stops telling jokes, laughing and playing instruments in your so called churches and afterwards let's talk about the icons. Year 726 - Hagia Sophia was stripped of religious illustrations and sculptural work with the abolition of veneration of icons (iconoclasm). Year 842 - Veneration of icons was finally reinstituted, commencing the redecoration of Hagia Sophia. I have prove what it had to be proven, begining with the Apostles icons were painted and historical testimony is layed about Hagia Sophia to have used icons til the iconoclasm in 726 AC and algain further from 842 AC. With it l have proven you a liar, no matter what you post that the poeple wouldn't see Christ or His Holy Mother when those who claim such things contradict even the Evangelium where is layed testimony that Christ lived among the people, done wonders, the same Holy Mother Mary lived in Jerusalem and was seen and known by the people. So what you do here is shamelessly lie, the same many of your sectarians protestants lied along the history in their atempt to denigrate the Church of Christ established thru His Apostles but as Christ said, His Church won't be defeated not even by the hell gates, let alone some sectarians and liars. So all you post are some delusions, there were a few people or even clerics along the history, who were against the icons, thus being against the traditions the Apostles of Christ brought.
Robert Dumicz : Yee Haw : 1. The council of Elvira proves that the early church strictly prohibited icons. It was a meeting of 19 bishops. You idolaters are so dishonest. Epiphanius’ Letter 51 (quoted above) was not forged or altered. There is no evidence that it was tampered with. The accusation that it was was made up by idolaters during the medieval period to excuse their introduction of pagan practices. Other than Nicephorus’s strained reasoning, it’s unclear if there are any other grounds for the “problems” with it. The questions of authenticity do not appear to be text-based; that is, there are no extant copies of Letter 51 without the iconoclastic remarks. According to Istvan M. Bugár, “the overwhelming majority of twentieth century scholars” accepted Holl’s conclusions about the debated letters and Epiphanius’s iconoclasm. Bugár agrees, “Letter 51 … is authentic.” Don’t comment again until you’ve read, “Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists Regarding Icons,” www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/
Scripture was given to us by the Lord Jesus, not by the "Church", certainly not by the "Orthodox" who broke away from the Apostolic Tradition when they embraced the idolatry condemned by the early church.
I've repeated cited the Council of Elvira, Eusebius and Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, quoting Elvira and Epiphanius. So your statement that I've not given supporting evidence is an out-right lie. Please repent of it. No leader in the early church was in support of icons. The opposition to icons was plainly stated by Elvira, Eusebius, and Epiphanius well before Islam. It appears to me that the "Orthodox" regularly lie about their history.
That's false. Give any evidence from the Bible that "Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple." You won't be able to find any because that statement is just another "Orthodox" lie. "Christians" do not "pay respect to icons." Christians are supposed to keep themselves from idols. Idol worshipers pay respect to icons/idols. The early church (as clearly expressed by Elvira, Eusebius, & Epiphanius) was strictly opposed to icons in the church.
If you want to get into the discussion about Jewish practice, you will lose. The Talmud is absolutely clear in its condemnation of images in worship. Anyone who knows anything about Jewish tradition knows that they are strictly opposed to icons. That you even try to make such an argument shows how shameless the "Orthodox" will be in their idolatry.
I think you better deal with the historical FACT that your sect first claims that is has perfectly preserved the Apostolic Tradition but then, second, we know that is completely false because the "Orthodox" practices that which the early church explicitly condemned. So, your sect is both not Biblical and is based on an historical fiction. It broke away from the Apostolic Tradition to follow pagan practices.
The evidence is clear, that Iconography is found throughout the Christian catacombs, and found in Jewish catacombs. The Jews were instructed not to make a false image of God, because they had not seen God. As Christians we believe that God became Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, and so we may depict that "which we have seen with our eyes". 1st John 1:1.
The Bible was didn't fall from heaven. If you believe such thing you are fanciful. Men wrote the various books and men decided which of these books are authentic & right in matters of faith. Since the 1st century appeared a lot of heretic books. St Athanasius (contemporary to the council of Elvira) says that Christians venerate the icons (to Antiochus the Ruler 38) Τhe Council of Hiereia wasn't accepted because of the absence of all patriarchs & because it condemned even st John of Damascus.
It is clear what it is banning: It's banning any images in a church. Your statement that that isn't clear is just an out-right lie. One can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who will blatantly lie rather than admit an obvious fact: the early church strictly opposed icons. "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration."
The Bible was given to us by the Lord Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Elvira is historical evidence of what the early church actually practiced. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration." So we now know that the "orthodox" claim to have preserved the pattern of worship of the early church is false.
I found this video to be incredibly valuable and profound as a new Orthodox Christian myself. I am very saddened to see where Frank Schaeffer currently stands. Please pray for him. Lord have mercy on us all.
My husband is Roman Catholic and I am Protestant. We are currently attending an Orthodox Church to discern if we both should join Orthodoxy. Mr. Schaeffer’s talks are so convincing and so clear. It has really helped me grow closer towards the decision to become Orthodox. I am so sorry to read on these comments that Mr. Schaeffer has fallen from the beliefs that he so passionately espoused. I pray he finds his way back.
It's such a pity Mr Schaeffer no longer seems to have much of a faith worthy of the name , as I've found these videos very helpful. I pray he finds his way back to what he used to believe, because his logic here is so clear. By contrast, these days he seems to be a rather confused man poisoned by hate and unbelief.
MIKHAIL! thank you SO much for uploading this!!
May the Lord God bless you my brother, really.
Wishing you the best and find the one an only Truth.. An Orthodox from Greece :)
Interesting that at 24 minutes in, he says that if you ask him, "Frank, do you really believe all of this stuff all of the time", that he would say "no". Frank Schaeffer endures a lot of criticism these days for his beliefs, but even in the 1990s, he was honest about his doubts. I have to respect that.
Thanks for this. I am not Orthodox or Christian, but the evidence for religious images in early Christian practice is quite evident (as you suggest). There are good theological reasons for using religious images, as well, especially due to the incarnation.
The Iconoclast/Icondule debate was conditioned by the proximity of Islam, who heavily polemicised against the use of images. The icondules prevailed for christological reasons, for it defends the incarnation.
This is the first time I see a layperson other than clergy or an academic giving a talk on orthodoxy!
The Jew understands the difference between veneration and worship. A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tallerin, before he binds them to his forehead and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, the Christians did likewise when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue. The early Christians also understood these distinctions as well.
Prior to the Iconoclastic controversy, there is extensive archeological evidence that Icons were used throughout the Church, and were this a departure from Apostolic Traditions we should expect to find a huge controversy on the subject from the very moment that Icons first came into use, which would have only intensified as their use became more common. We find nothing of the sort.
The issue with the 2nd Commandment is what does the word translated"graven images" mean? It simply means carved images.If it meant any images then the images in the Temple would be in violation of the Commandment. The cherubim in the Temple would be in violation of this Commandment.
Jewish Holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them, they contain illustrations of Biblical scenes much like those found at the Synagogue of Dora Europos and like the church near by. The earliest Icons of the catacombs were mostly of the Old Testament scenes and Icons of Christ.The Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a pagan practice Christianized by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by Christians.
The statement from Elvira is clear, concise and reasonably restricted to churches: "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration." Obviously, you can't "venerate" an image that isn't even allowed in the church.
The question isn't how it is to be interpreted. The question is whether you accept the true Apostolic Tradition or not.
The Second Commandment is likewise clear. The question is: Will you obey it?
This man has become an all out anti-God leftists of the worst order. Pray for him.
It's likely because he mostly intellectualized Christianity.
Intellectualizing faith is like conceptualizing food when you're hungry.
You'll eventually starve.
The wording of this canon is almost certainly not a blanket ban on images. It is not clear what it is banning, and to what end. The fact is that Icons were in use in Spanish churches before the Synod and they continued to be in use after the Synod, without any further evidence of controversy. The Synod was of a purely local character, and was never affirmed on a Ecumenical level. It's decisions had nothing to do with the entire church, and is used as a weak ploy against Icons.
Protestants tend to absolutize the Bible & forget that it is only a part of the divine revelation to men. They view it as a "brain" that collects information about God that Christians need to study intellectually to be saved. They forgot that the mystery of God is ineffable & men are saved by their personal relationship to God. Besides, the Church existed before the writing of the books of the New Testament and the apostles themselves make clear that the Word of God is not run out in some books.
It's historical evidence about what the early church really practiced. They did NOT allow pictures in the church. Eusebius and Epiphanius and the Talmudic tradition against images and the Roman accusation of being atheists show the same thing.
The Second Commandment does NOT just apply to graven images. Notice the "OR": "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."
From more recent statements he seems to have turned his back on the idea of a divinely inspired Bible and Holy Tradition entirely. He's coupled this with continuous teeth-grinding over certain Republican politicians. It seems like he is a very unhappy man, and Orthodoxy has not worked out for him the way he wanted it to. A great shame.
Anyone may fall, perhaps he has a new relationship and that could influence.
The main difference is that protestant theology is based on law where orthodox theology is purely on God's mercy and love
Christians pray in the presence of Icons, just as the Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple, but we pray do not pray to the image. Christian iconography expresses in Holy Images the same Gospel message that Scriptures communicates by words. Christians pay respect to Icons because they are Holy objects, and because we revere what the Icon depicts.
Since great Fathers like Photius accept Augustine's sainthood, who are we to deny such thing? Augustine lived a complex life & tried to understand the faith & express it without knowing greek (not that greek is a divine language, but without it he could not read all the great patristic works, the consensus patrum). He is a saint b/c he didn't know that some of his ideas were misbeliefs; heretics are they who even when a saint or a synod show them their mistakes continue & remain unrepentant.
He didn't replace it with one with an image. He specifically said, in that account that such images are against our "religion".
Elvira is evidence of what the early church thought of icons. The later "Orthodox" broke with the Apostolic Tradition and their claim to have preserved the practices of the early church are clearly spurious.
The claim that "veneration and respect" is something other than worship is, like the claim to have preserved the practices of the early church, a lie.
100% incorrect. The iconoclast heresy that infected Christianity and Judaism in the middle ages was Islamic in origin. The Tabernacle and Temples were full of holy images, as are the oldest preserved synagogues, as are the oldest church buildings.
How is the Elvira council Apostolic Tradition? Apostolic Tradition is what had been handed down by the original Apostles. Was Elvira handed down by the Twelve?
As far as you using the 2nd Commandment, you are interpreting it the way you want to. It refers to graven images. The Hebrews who translated the Bible into Greek translated the word " eidoloi" which is idols. If your translation is correct, then, any image regardless of what or whom would be against the Commandment.
Some cite other Fathers and early writers of the Church to support their positions. Most of these quotations simply denounce idolatry, and have nothing to do with Icons. In a few cases the quotes could plausibly be interpreted as condemning Icons, a consistent interpretation would require that no images be made at all. The objection in these texts is to the making of and possession of images, and yet none addresses the question of veneration. Canon 36 , Elvira, is a weak excuse against Icons.
You simply don't understand. The Bible is not opposed to art. It is opposed to exactly what the "orthodox" do with art in worship, that they turn images into idols and worship them (and then lie about it.) The Second Commandment: "“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, . ." (Ex. 20:4ff).
You make a few controversial claims here but without giving any supporting evidence. I am not sure how much history you know, but I'll assume that you know something. There was a great debate in the Church regarding icons (which just means "image"). Those who were in favour of icons recognised that since God had become human in Jesus Christ it was now possible to depict the divine. The Iconclasts (those against icons) were influenced by Muslims who deby the Incarnation. Be careful.
I am not Orthodox and I am not even Christian; but I notice that you (who claims to be Christian) is certainly not acting in accordance with your faith.
The fact is that we have images of Christ and Mary from the 2nd to 4th centuries. The Christians who were against the use of images were mainly influenced by Jewish beliefs and practices.
You also need to show why images of Christ should be prohibited given the incarnation.
Your self-rigeousness does you no credit.
You didn't answer who chose these certain books as parts of the NT. Do you have any evidence it was the 12?
The texts of various saints that were used by the council of Hiereia were manhandled. In the VII Oec. Synod these texts were read full & not cut & adulterated. Eg read about Amphilochius's works in Mansi, 13:301-305. Do you have the records of the council? Epiphanius' letter was considered false and ofc it says that all the Church Fathers didn't agree to destroy the icons.
If you don't consider Orthodoxy to be the real Church, how do you accept the biblical canon? Don't you know it was developed by Athanasius and other orthodox saints? The Bible doesn't say how many books it contains and which are these books.
I repeat that in Church history there were a lot of synods that decided wrong things that the Christians as a total didn't accept. Why do you call upon this minor council (who issued the celibacy of the clergy too) and not the great VII Oecumenical Synod?
It must be easy for you to comment, you just copy+paste.
About the Bible, I ask you directly: Do you believe that it was written by MEN and certainly some yrs after the Pentecost? Answer with YES or NO. And what do you mean "given by God"? A parchment fell from heaven? Christ left behind him his disciples (the first Church) and no written texts.
The "information" about Epiphanius is taken from the records of the second council of Nicaea. Do you know anything about them?
That's false. The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) does not just prohibit "graven images." It specifically says, "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". "OR": You shall not make a graven (3 dimensional) image OR any other kind of image, and this, for the use in worship. The "Orthodox" therefore clearly violate.
OR!
What is your point? Epiphanius replaced the torn veil after the people complained that it was destroyed. It was one incident, and did not change the course of the early church on icons. Elvira wasn't the only council or synod at that time, and Elvira's decisions have nothing to do with Apostolic Traditions of the early church. These events had no impact on the rest of the church.You are purposely confusing "worship and adoration" with "veneration and respect".
1. The Bible contains books written by men who tried to explain with our incomplete human language the mysteries of God. See what Paul says about his vision: 2 Corinthians 12:1-4.
2. Jesus says that you must not manhandle his parents, because that's against what God said (to Moses etc). What this have to do with the biblical canon?
3. Your juridicalism doesn't let you see that a council becomes valid if the God's people accepts it. The councils of Elvira, 2nd of Ephesus, Florence aren't valid.
That's false. First, there aren't that many pictures in catacombs in the first place, mostly in Rome. Second, the catacombs were burial places, not churches. So they aren't relevant to this; "icons" are symbols used in worship, i.e. in churches. The evidence is clear that the early church was strictly opposed to such things.
Third, that you confuse "that which we have seen with our eyes" (The Apostle John's experience of actually seeing Jesus) with your icons, proves that the icons are idols.
Actually, do a study of what the Talmud (the Jewish tradition) says about the use of images in worship. I posted direct quotes from it elsewhere. The Jewish tradition, like the Apostolic Tradition, is strictly opposed to the use of icons in worship. What you describe isn't even comparable to the use of icons.
Your suggestions otherwise are just more "Orthodox" fiction, directly contrary to the clear, written evidence of Elvira, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and the facts of history.
You are basing your argument on weak points and missing the real issue. One small local council or even several doesn't carry any more authority than one Father or even several . It is the consensus of the Fathers , in light of the Ecumenical Councils that carry the final word on these or any other issues.
Elvira was not an Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition is from the original Twelve Apostles.
True enough. I certainly pray that the mistakes Augustine made were due to ignorance, for they are many.
You should read the end of John's letter: "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:21.)
Icons are no more idols than a picture of your wife is, it serves as a reminder and helps one focus on the lessons of prayer, nothing more.
You are quite right. This guy is very deceptive and refuses to tell me what sect he belongs to. He repeats the same narrow minded nonsense, refusing to see the whole picture.
Veneration and respect has nothing to do with worship. You are out to confuse terminology. The archeological findings in certain area that contained Christian images proves that the early church did allow images and the fact that this continued throughout the Christian Empire. You conveniently dismiss the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which included the entire church and made the final decisions concerning church matters or controversies.
The Bible was given by the Lord Jesus. He affirmed the OT and appointed the Apostles, who were guided by the Holy Spirit. That's why the Lord Jesus told us to put the Word of God over tradition when there is a conflict (Mt. 15:6).
I believe your citation of Athanasius is wrong. Give me an actual quote with a verifiable, primary source. Elvira, Eusebius, and Epiphanius are proof of what the early church actually practiced and they show that the early church did not tolerate icons.
Constantine wasn't cruel, you commit the serious mistake of anachronism. Constantine was a man of his age, a great & genius politician who saved thousands of people from the persecutions, brought tolerance & revivified his empire so that it may last for 1,000+ yrs.
Also note that, for the Orthodox Church, sainthood is neither morality nor an externally certified condition, but God's gift/revelation. There are a lot of saints (Moses the Black, James the Ascetic, the Good Thief) who were criminals
Manichean Gnosticism... once again, evidence that Augustine planted an egg in the western church. Why this man was declared a Saint is beyond me. "You shall know a tree by the fruit it bears." Augustine rejected the old Jewish understanding of the Word of God, supplanted the old Orthodox teaching of the trinity, said that Mary was one the level of a goddess, not just the Theotokos, said anything to do with the flesh is evil (including sexual relations between spouses), and no free will.
The Lord Jesus told us the Bible is "the Word of God" and that it is pre-eminent over tradition. "So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God." (Mt. 15:6). The church, as in all of creation, was called into being by the Word of God.
The "orthodox" broke away from the pattern of the early church. The Council of Elvira states, "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration." (36)
To recognize sth means to find it there and accept it. The Church didn't find the NT there, it began in Pentecost and existed for several yrs without texts. The NT books were written later and BY the Church members. Clear?
Epiphanius' letter was considered false b/c:
He had written an analysis of every falsification of the faith & didn't refer to icons as one.
All his other works are well known except for this
Nobody until the 8th cent used this letter
His students built a temple with icons
You think Elvira is "weak" because you don't really accept the traditions of the early church. I guess you think Epiphanius (Letter 51, c. 394) is weak too:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints;. . . . Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder . . . .
That's just baloney. "Worship" is giving "worth." You give worth to the images, so you are worshiping them, in the church, and thus committing idolatry.
It's like saying sex with your mistress has nothing to do with adultery. It's just the lie that they teach you to excuse their sin.
God makes the final decisions. Only an idolatrous man-follower would say that a council makes the final decisions. Besides, which "ecumenical councils": the 754 "Seventh Ecumenical Council" that condemned icons?
I'm giving verifiable facts of history: Elvira, Eusebius, Epiphanius, etc.
It doesn't matter if later man-followers considered the council authoritative or not.
Idolaters always look for an institution or a visible thing to follow.
Elvira, Eusebius, Epiphanius, etc., is historical proof of what the practice of the early church was. And it was totally opposed to the use of images in the church. Therefore, the "Orthodox" claim to have preserved the Apostolic Tradition is demonstrably false.
The Elvira council was held somewhere in Spain, far from the eastern where the true Faith in Christ was lived.
In the contrary, those from Elvira Council abandoned the custom of the originar Church as Icons were painted and used in the Church from the beginnings, fact which caused the Eastern Curch to not recognise that pretended council and even some western clerics declared it heretical.
I post links which prove Apostle Luke painted numerous icons: www.wherewewalked.info/Luke/lukeicons.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luke_painting_the_Virgin
aleteia.org/2017/10/18/4-icons-of-mary-attributed-to-st-luke-the-evangelist/
Give up your sect invented by a man 500 years ago and join the Church founded by the Apostles of Christ almost 2000 years ago.
Yes, we're praising God thru the Holy Liturgy as was left written to us by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, the Holy Evangelium is enchanted too, we confess our sins and we recieve the Holy Eucharist as Christ said to His Apostles we shall do in His rememberance, partaking His Holy Flesh and Blood, we praise and worship God in the Holy Trinity also thru icons thru which God works wonders even nowadays, healings of cancers, instantly melting of tumors of last stage and what not, many icons were seen shading tears and many more wonders are provided, because God loves His Saints, while you play guitar, chat and joke in your protestant buildings, you do worldly things for you ain't got no Sacraments, you don't know better, nothing left by Christ and His Apostles, sola scriptura from which a sect pastor from time to time reads some passages. Your sect is a worldly institution where you do your worldly deeds and gestures.
Answer for l answered to your claims, so answer too, are dancing and playing guitar and orchestra, telling jokes and laughing used and addmited forms of worship in the Early Church..? And if they aren't, why do your pretended church do such petty and blasfemious things..? What you pretend church is actualy a sect invented by a man almost 1500 years after the Church of Christ was established by His Apostles. And many members of that sect criticise the custom in our Early Church, the icons, even if Apostle Luke painted icons, but your sectants laugh and play instruments, dance and flirt, gossip too in the buildings you call church, the pot calling the kettle black... But pot would still be ok, dark tools of devil are those who bare false witness against the Church of Christ. l have shown to you that your sect, (the protestant invented by a man over 1400 years after the Apostles of Christ founded the Orthodox Church in Eastern) are using blasfemious means, as telling jokes and laughing, playing guitar and such worldly deeds which aren't accepted by the early church so what are you ranting, pretending we'd have a straw in our eye while you have a beam in your eye..? So first remove that beam from your eye, which means, do in such manner that your sect stops telling jokes, laughing and playing instruments in your so called churches and afterwards let's talk about the icons.
Year 726 - Hagia Sophia was stripped of religious illustrations and sculptural work with the abolition of veneration of icons (iconoclasm).
Year 842 - Veneration of icons was finally reinstituted, commencing the redecoration of Hagia Sophia.
Robert Dumicz :
The early church strictly prohibited icons.
1. The early church interpreted the second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) as prohibiting making an image and bowing to it. There are no icons in the Bible.
2. You cannot produce one valid example of anyone from the early church teaching for icons or using them. Not one Christian before AD 500.
3. Tertullian defended the proposition of “similitude being interdicted” (images are prohibited). The image of the serpent in the wilderness was an “extraordinary precept” (i.e. a rare exception). He wrote that we are only allowed to follow suit if, like Moses, God has bidden us to do so. He required all artists to stop making images in order to be accepted into the church. (Tertullian, Idol. 5 (www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm))
4. Your claims about the translation of Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira are false. You try to obfuscate the subject by arguing about the translation. Some claim the standard translation-“Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration”-is inaccurate. Eastern Orthodox scholar Bigham, among others, suggests the following translation: “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.” While this debate on the precise translation may create a sense of uncertainty about what canon 36 actually says, none of the proposed translations changes the two relevant statements: that pictures were not allowed in churches (a moderate aniconism) and that the Synod of Elvira did not want what is “worshipped and adored” depicted in images. Karl Josef von Hefele (1809-1893), a German Roman Catholic church historian and bishop, quotes the original Latin (placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur) and comments that “these canons are easy to understand” and that “the ancient church did not tolerate images” and that “the prohibition conceived is in very general terms.”
5. Irenaeus, (ca. 130-202) spoke admirably of art, “a beautiful image of a king . . . constructed by some skillful artist,” on the other he says this of the Gnostic Carpocratians use of icons:
"They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles. "
Notice that crowning and honoring of the images, “after the same manner of the Gentiles,” means that they are being used not simply as decorations but as icons.
6. Origen, quoted above, condemns icons. The orthodoxy (or heterodoxy) of Origen’s theology is not relevant to the validity of the historical data he provides. Origen’s contribution to this investigation is not theological but as evidence to the practice of early Christian worship. Even if he had been fully condemned as a heretic, why would he misrepresent the lack of images in Christian worship?
In fact, Origen’s apologetic to Celsus was typical for the early church. Explaining the absence of images in Christian worship was a staple of other early church apologists, including Marcus Minucius Felix (d. ca. 250) and Anthengoras (ca. 133-190). Romans frequently considered the lack of religious images among Christians as prima facie evidence of atheism. These apologists were at pains to explain that was not so. Like Celsus, Marcus Minucius Felix’s fictional polytheist, Caecilius Natalis attacked Christians for lacking images in worship. The fictional Caecilius Natalis, asks, “Why do [Christians] have no alters, no temples, no public images?”
7. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) About the year 327 Eusebius, who lived in Jerusalem, received a letter from the emperor’s sister, Constantia, asking him for a picture of Christ. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such images are inadequate and tend to idolatry. He reports that a woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but she claimed were images of Paul and Christ. He confiscated them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or others. He reminds Constantia that the Apostle Paul declares his intention of “knowing Christ no longer after the flesh.” Eusebius wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image. “To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error.” Hence Jaroslav Pelikan, a former Lutheran pastor who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, calls Eusebius “the father of iconoclasm.”.
8. I proved above that Epiphanius' Epiphanius, Letter 51, is indeed authentic and that your claims otherwise are lies. Here's what Epiphanius said about icons:
"I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person."
He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.”
9. The Luke fable: the claim that Luke painted the first icons appears to be from the sixth century at the earliest. Later authors, like Theodore Anagnostes (died after 527) supposedly reported about Eudocia, the wife of emperor Theodosian II (408-450), sending to Pulcheria (399-453) from Jerusalem the icon of “the Mother of God” depicted by “the Apostle Luke.” However, other sources claim that the earliest attestation of the supposed icon of Mary by Luke is from Andrew of Crete (ca. 712-740). There is no evidence of the claim of icons by Luke in the early church. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) wrote that no one knew the appearance of Jesus or that of Mary. “For neither do we know the countenance of the Virgin Mary.” It is highly unlikely that a bishop as erudite as Augustine would be ignorant of the claim of an eyewitness rendition of Mary if that claim had originated by his time. Bissera V. Pentcheva concludes, “The myth [of Luke painting an icon] was invented in order to support the legitimacy of icon veneration during the Iconoclast controversy [8th and 9th centuries]. By claiming the existence of a portrait of the Theotokos painted during her lifetime by the evangelist Luke, the perpetrators of this fiction fabricated evidence for the apostolic origins and divine approval of images.”
10. You presented false evidence, with Pseudo-Basil which everyone knows is false. The existence of a “Pseudo-Basil” has long been known, so that even John Calvin references “Pseudo-Basil” twice in his Institutes (IV.5.8n23, IV.13.8n12). Pseudo-Basil was a devotee of Thecla, a reported follower of Paul according to the late second century text “Acts of Paul and Thecla.” The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that some of the letters attributed to Basil are “probably apocryphal.” Andrew Louth states that several of Basil’s letters are “spurious.” Further, the language of letter 360, apparently addressed to no one in particular, betrays a later date, like near the iconoclastic controversy. First, we know from the other evidence of the early church that at least significant parts of the church prohibited icons, and so the assertion that iconography, which is what is described in the honoring and kissing of the images, is “not forbidden” is false. Further, if iconography was really “handed down” from the beginning and ubiquitous, as the letter claims, why would Basil state the obvious? That is, why would an ancient Christian write to another about a supposedly ancient, pervasive Christian practice stating that it “not forbidden,” if everyone knew it was not forbidden? When we do ever defend ancient, widespread Christian practices, like singing? The letter has the sound of evidence created after the fact. István M. Bugár concludes that letter 360 is “anachronistic” and is so widely doubted that it “does not feature in most collections” of Basil’s letters.
@@yeoberry The Elvira council was held somewhere in Spain, far from the eastern where the true Faith in Christ was lived.
In the contrary, those from Elvira Council abandoned the custom of the originar Church as Icons were painted and used in the Church from the beginnings, fact which caused the Eastern Curch to not recognise that pretended council and even some western clerics declared it heretical.
I post links which prove Apostle Luke painted numerous icons: www.wherewewalked.info/Luke/lukeicons.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luke_painting_the_Virgin
aleteia.org/2017/10/18/4-icons-of-mary-attributed-to-st-luke-the-evangelist/
Give up your sect invented by a man 500 years ago and join the Church founded by the Apostles of Christ almost 2000 years ago.
Yes, we're praising God thru the Holy Liturgy as was left written to us by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, the Holy Evangelium is enchanted too, we confess our sins and we recieve the Holy Eucharist as Christ said to His Apostles we shall do in His rememberance, partaking His Holy Flesh and Blood, we praise and worship God in the Holy Trinity also thru icons thru which God works wonders even nowadays, healings of cancers, instantly melting of tumors of last stage and what not, many icons were seen shading tears and many more wonders are provided, because God loves His Saints, while you play guitar, chat and joke in your protestant buildings, you do worldly things for you ain't got no Sacraments, you don't know better, nothing left by Christ and His Apostles, sola scriptura from which a sect pastor from time to time reads some passages. Your sect is a worldly institution where you do your worldly deeds and gestures.
Answer for l answered to your claims, so answer too, are dancing and playing guitar and orchestra, telling jokes and laughing used and addmited forms of worship in the Early Church..? And if they aren't, why do your pretended church do such petty and blasfemious things..? What you pretend church is actualy a sect invented by a man almost 1500 years after the Church of Christ was established by His Apostles. And many members of that sect criticise the custom in our Early Church, the icons, even if Apostle Luke painted icons, but your sectants laugh and play instruments, dance and flirt, gossip too in the buildings you call church, the pot calling the kettle black... But pot would still be ok, dark tools of devil are those who bare false witness against the Church of Christ. l have shown to you that your sect, (the protestant invented by a man over 1400 years after the Apostles of Christ founded the Orthodox Church in Eastern) are using blasfemious means, as telling jokes and laughing, playing guitar and such worldly deeds which aren't accepted by the early church so what are you ranting, pretending we'd have a straw in our eye while you have a beam in your eye..? So first remove that beam from your eye, which means, do in such manner that your sect stops telling jokes, laughing and playing instruments in your so called churches and afterwards let's talk about the icons.
Year 726 - Hagia Sophia was stripped of religious illustrations and sculptural work with the abolition of veneration of icons (iconoclasm).
Year 842 - Veneration of icons was finally reinstituted, commencing the redecoration of Hagia Sophia.
I have prove what it had to be proven, begining with the Apostles icons were painted and historical testimony is layed about Hagia Sophia to have used icons til the iconoclasm in 726 AC and algain further from 842 AC. With it l have proven you a liar, no matter what you post that the poeple wouldn't see Christ or His Holy Mother when those who claim such things contradict even the Evangelium where is layed testimony that Christ lived among the people, done wonders, the same Holy Mother Mary lived in Jerusalem and was seen and known by the people. So what you do here is shamelessly lie, the same many of your sectarians protestants lied along the history in their atempt to denigrate the Church of Christ established thru His Apostles but as Christ said, His Church won't be defeated not even by the hell gates, let alone some sectarians and liars.
So all you post are some delusions, there were a few people or even clerics along the history, who were against the icons, thus being against the traditions the Apostles of Christ brought.
Robert Dumicz :
Yee Haw :
1. The council of Elvira proves that the early church strictly prohibited icons. It was a meeting of 19 bishops. You idolaters are so dishonest.
Epiphanius’ Letter 51 (quoted above) was not forged or altered. There is no evidence that it was tampered with. The accusation that it was was made up by idolaters during the medieval period to excuse their introduction of pagan practices. Other than Nicephorus’s strained reasoning, it’s unclear if there are any other grounds for the “problems” with it. The questions of authenticity do not appear to be text-based; that is, there are no extant copies of Letter 51 without the iconoclastic remarks. According to Istvan M. Bugár, “the overwhelming majority of twentieth century scholars” accepted Holl’s conclusions about the debated letters and Epiphanius’s iconoclasm. Bugár agrees, “Letter 51 … is authentic.”
Don’t comment again until you’ve read, “Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists Regarding Icons,” www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/
Scripture was given to us by the Lord Jesus, not by the "Church", certainly not by the "Orthodox" who broke away from the Apostolic Tradition when they embraced the idolatry condemned by the early church.
I've repeated cited the Council of Elvira, Eusebius and Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, quoting Elvira and Epiphanius. So your statement that I've not given supporting evidence is an out-right lie. Please repent of it.
No leader in the early church was in support of icons. The opposition to icons was plainly stated by Elvira, Eusebius, and Epiphanius well before Islam.
It appears to me that the "Orthodox" regularly lie about their history.
That's false. Give any evidence from the Bible that "Israelites prayed in the presence of Icons in the Temple." You won't be able to find any because that statement is just another "Orthodox" lie.
"Christians" do not "pay respect to icons." Christians are supposed to keep themselves from idols. Idol worshipers pay respect to icons/idols.
The early church (as clearly expressed by Elvira, Eusebius, & Epiphanius) was strictly opposed to icons in the church.
If you want to get into the discussion about Jewish practice, you will lose. The Talmud is absolutely clear in its condemnation of images in worship. Anyone who knows anything about Jewish tradition knows that they are strictly opposed to icons.
That you even try to make such an argument shows how shameless the "Orthodox" will be in their idolatry.
I think you better deal with the historical FACT that your sect first claims that is has perfectly preserved the Apostolic Tradition but then, second, we know that is completely false because the "Orthodox" practices that which the early church explicitly condemned.
So, your sect is both not Biblical and is based on an historical fiction. It broke away from the Apostolic Tradition to follow pagan practices.
The evidence is clear, that Iconography is found throughout the Christian catacombs, and found in Jewish catacombs. The Jews were instructed not to make a false image of God, because they had not seen God. As Christians we believe that God became Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, and so we may depict that "which we have seen with our eyes". 1st John 1:1.
The Bible was didn't fall from heaven. If you believe such thing you are fanciful. Men wrote the various books and men decided which of these books are authentic & right in matters of faith. Since the 1st century appeared a lot of heretic books.
St Athanasius (contemporary to the council of Elvira) says that Christians venerate the icons (to Antiochus the Ruler 38)
Τhe Council of Hiereia wasn't accepted because of the absence of all patriarchs & because it condemned even st John of Damascus.
It is clear what it is banning: It's banning any images in a church. Your statement that that isn't clear is just an out-right lie. One can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who will blatantly lie rather than admit an obvious fact: the early church strictly opposed icons.
"Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration."
The Bible was given to us by the Lord Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Elvira is historical evidence of what the early church actually practiced.
Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration."
So we now know that the "orthodox" claim to have preserved the pattern of worship of the early church is false.