ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Icon Veneration is CLEARLY Biblical
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ส.ค. 2024
- Much has been said about the logical and historical aspect of icon veneration, but St. John of Damascus' contribution to the debate is also on the biblical aspect. This video explains how exactly the Bible testifies to the veneration of icons.
Sorry if this video is low energy, it's been a while and I was sick when recording this.
Shoutouts to all of my Financiers:
All of my Links: linktr.ee/ther...
Check out Patristic Faith: www.patristicf...
Follow on Twitter: / medwhiteacolyte
TH-cam Membership / @therealmedwhite
Donate to my Patreon: / therealmedwhite
Subscribe to my Telegram: t.me/therealme...
My Discord: / discord
BTC wallet if you want to donate in BTC: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44
My Substack if you want to read my articles: therealmedwhit...
Rokfin: www.rokfin.com...
Odysee: odysee.com/@th...
![Are Icons Idols? [Responding to J.I. Packer's Iconoclasm]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Akkb_EsY4MM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Are Icons Idols? [Responding to J.I. Packer's Iconoclasm]](/img/tr.png)
The Orthodox Church has made it clear to me that it's not just Biblical, but necessary. The possibility of authentic representation is necessary for a logically coherent worldview. Dr. Beau Branson once made the beautiful analogy of himself kissing a picture of his wife and children, and how that doesn't signify him loving the material of the picture or the frame itself, but the persons represented by it. Denying the reality of what an object signifies is indicative of a disintegrated worldview.
Possibility means human assumption, not facts.
@@donhaddix3770 We live in a visual world and as humans we are visual beings. Studies show that we remember 80% of what we see, 20% of what we read and 10% of what we hear. We are all humans and we need to look in something when we pray. You would still look in anything unintentionally. Maybe it is a shape of your window, or door, or some corner in the room. It can be even shape of cross in your Bible. If you do it in public, in park again your eyes will focus something it is natural thing. You cannot avoid it. And all of this you will use as a help to pray not as actual you worship as a God. Even if you close your eyes when you pray you are visualizing something, some image you have in your mind.
@@mmr1137 millions of believers who trust in His word don't pray in front of icons and they don't feel they need it or can't pray without it.
They have a personal relation with their Creator and they don't want to go against His word.
The second commandment is clear and interpreting it any other way is blasphemy.
Stop following pagan/religious traditions and follow God only m
Yah bless.
@donhaddix3770 where do tou get that from. It's so off base lol
@lowgeez1 what are the cherubim on the arc of the covenant then?
If I, a once staunch yet non-denom/Baptist leaning Protestant can understand how icons are apostolic and biblical, and come to the true faith, any Protestant can. Mercy filled Lent, brothers and sisters! Pray for us all.
Glory be to God brother!
We can shake hands brother! Mercy filled Lent to you and your loved ones as well.
All the evidence he presented in this videos are exceptions and misinterpretations of veneration to living and real holy things.
And then he states that images of Christ are supposed to be venerated or worshipped an this logic doesn’t follow.
@@internautaoriginal9951 sounds like more Protestant nonsense but go off. Remind us again who you co-opted Holy Scriptures from?
@@internautaoriginal9951 who gave you the Bible again?
You rock David. Mercy filled Lent!
I’m Catholic and I firmly believe Icon Veneration is Apostolic. I wish more Catholic Apologetics would defend that view instead of just saying Doctrinal Development.
It gets awkward for rc then they have to explain why the Franks were vehemently opposed to the icon veneration and rejected the 7th council. Same franks that eventually made the pope use the filioque.
I wish they would recant their added doctrines and return to the Church.
Not really possible given that RCC doctrine has developed
@@nathanmagnuson2589 No it’s certainly possible in regards to the Apostolic Nature of Icon Veneration. I’m not the only one who sees it that way.
You can make that argument about other Doctrine’s though.
@@TragicKF genuine question and i say this with love and respect, have you considered orthodoxy before? what is holding you pack from investigating its exclusive truth claims and potentially looking toward the east as a viable option? have you looked into the orthodox perspective and objections to Catholicism before?
With regards to the passage in Acts 10, it’s very interesting to me that St. John Chrysostom in his 23rd Homily on the Acts of the Apostles reads Cornelius’ bowing before Peter not as worship, but as a sign of piety. He then reads Peter raising him up and assuring him that he is also a man as a sign of humility on the part of Peter. There’s really no reason to think Cornelius was being rebuked for committing idolatry (he’s described as a God fearing man at the beginning of the chapter) This is St. John’s commentary on the passage:
And Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends. This is the part of a friend, this the part of a devout man, that where such blessings are concerned, he takes care that his near friends shall be made partakers of all. Of course (his near friends), those in whom he had ever full confidence; fearing, with such an interest at stake, to entrust the matter to others. In my opinion, it was by Cornelius himself that both friends and kinsmen had been brought to a better mind. And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. Acts 10:25 This, both to teach the others, and by way of giving thanks to God, and showing his own humility: thereby making it plain, that though he had been commanded, yet in himself he had great piety. What then did Peter? But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Acts 10:26 Do you mark how, before all else (the Apostles) teach them this lesson, not to think great things of them?
Very logical explanation. The image is not worshipped. It is who the image represents.
praying it, kissing kissing it, etc is worship
@@donhaddix3770 according to who?
This is lovely David. Very similar to St John of Damascus’ polemical work.
Great video, David. May we continue to pray for the misguided and deceived Protestants who cannot bring themselves to accept these fundamental spiritual truths. Even just the idea that Christ is the image of the Father, so that we might “see” Him and know Him intimately, destroys even the “strongest” argument for iconoclasm.
Icons are essential because Christ and His incarnation are essential. To reject icons and the principles thereof is to reject Christ Himself, just as rejecting Saints who are the image (or icons) of Christ who embody Him throughout history is to reject Christ. For all in Christ are one with Christ, so to reject in part or in principle is to reject the whole.
Icons are not essential since Christ fulfill all of this and we don’t need it anymore.
He didn’t make a case for ivón veneration but one against it.
@@internautaoriginal9951 You simply do not know what you are talking about. Refusal to even try to understand icons, why they are venerated, and why they ought to be venerated is condemning yourself.
Christ is an icon of the Father and we are all icons of God. Because God became man through the incarnation, going from an invisible, unknowable being to a visible and depictable person, icons are not only acceptable and legitimate but necessary tools of salvation as they are the fullest possible expression of the very notion of the incarnation itself.
It's why all saints have halos in icons. That halo is the glory of the prototype shining through. We cannot see the Father but we can see Christ because He became man. As a man, He is able to reveal the glory of the Father. As such, saints who are full of the Holy Spirit also themselves, through their lives of holiness, display the glory of Christ working and flowing through them. And whether they be of Christ or the saints, icons are the visible manifestation of all of the above. To be an iconoclast is to deny this very real and fundamental spiritual reality that is necessary for salvation.
I pray Christ helps you through this to develop a right understanding on this matter. It's essential for your soul.
God became man (Jesus) and has a image, therefor it is okay to depict Jesus and Saints. Icons are Christian and Biblical.
I saw a prayer on Goarch. The prayer explicitly said Most Holy Theotokos we PRAY TO thee with heartfelt conpunction of soul. Saying things like that while bowing to an icon is simple plain idolatry.
Yes we pray to ther because she is witj God our king since death does not separate man from God and she is highly favored. She can intercede for us and does have the spiritual power to ask God to help us in sin and the same God James 5:16
Loved the video, but I think I should mention that there is a significant stream in the Orthodox Church that renders the “Man” that Joshua bows down to in Joshua 5:14 is not an Angel (St. Michael is the typical interpretation and I believe this is what St. John of Damascus thought) but that this is the “Angel of the Lord”, or Christ himself. So, yes he was bowing to an angel, but that angel also happened to be God. So for a lot of people that argument falls flat.
I think it would be a cool video that explains this disagreement in the fathers about who this figure is (St. Michael or Christ).
Every interpretation I've seen affirms its an angel
Amazing video David. The best video on Icons on TH-cam.
Useful, perhaps. Mandatory, that's not true.
Love and Thanks from Greece, David.
Cool video and the sound has your signature sound!
So to be *clear*, you believe in the clarity (i.e., the plainness, the perspicuity) of Scripture?
Only when it's convenient, apparently.
[Christians] abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. . . . [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God. . . . [I]t is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images. (Against Celsus 7.62-7.65 ANF)
And if, further, temples are to be compared with temples, that we may prove to those who accept the opinions of Celsus that we do not object to the erection of temples suited to the images and altars of which we have spoken, but that we do refuse to build lifeless temples to the Giver of all life, let any one who chooses learn how we are taught, that our bodies are the temple of God, and that if any one by lust or sin defiles the temple of God, he will himself be destroyed, as acting impiously towards the true temple. Of all the temples spoken of in this sense, the best and most excellent was the pure and holy body of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Against celsus book 8. Chapter 19
I am very grateful for this..may God bless u
Regardless of if it's biblical, the main problem is the 2nd Council of Nicea made icon veneration an issue of salvation by pronouncing anathema against those that do not venerate icons or even debate the matter. If you feel kissing an icon is appropriate, that's fine, but the fact that this was made a salvation issue is probably why most Protestants have an issue with it.
This is really what it comes down to. Historic Protestants are not iconoclasts. In fact, many Lutherans and Anglican’s are in favor of the use of iconography! The issue comes along with the idea of an over focus on icons, and their intrinsic connection to salvation. Nicea II takes something that is a perfectly acceptable and biblical practice, and makes it so central to doctrine that you are affectively, held at gunpoint to venerate icons, regardless of how you feel about it at the cost of the salvation of your soul.
I firmly agree that to damage or destroy an icon is a horrible thing to do, and shows direct disrespect to whoever or whatever is depicted in that icon, but when we start to argue that it’s a one to one equivalent of disrespect or honor, applied to an icon to its prototype, not only does it open the door to treat the icon, as if it is the prototype, you’re also equating that too say destroy an icon is equally as awful as murdering. The individual depicted. That might sound extreme or like a false dichotomy, but I really don’t believe that it is.
For example, if I took an icon of Saint Ignatius, for example, and I threw it in a fire. Have I done something egregious and wrong? Yes, of course I have, but if I was standing next to Saint Ignatius himself, and I picked him up and threw him into a fire, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that doing that is infinitely worse. In the same way when I look to an icon of a saint, I should look on it with reverence and respect, and I should treat it carefully, but to treat an icon of someone exactly how you treat the person themselves applies a quality to an image that it just inherently does not have.
@@thegearhouse5337 well said! I find it ironic because the real first Christian council was in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council. It makes me laugh how that addressed Pharisees adding circumcision and keeping the Law to salvation. Not much has changed in the way of people adding random things, such as icon veneration, to salvation. That's my biggest problem with the Orthodox church and is almost exclusively why I'm not Orthodox.
I just think of it like this. Someone hears the Gospel, believes and trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ, they live their life obedient to Him, keeping His commandments, loving God and loving others, yet in the judgement, God would be like, "Sorry... You did everything according to Scripture, but... you just didn't venerate icons. I'm going to have to send you to hell."
This is one of the main reasons I have a problem with it. It seems to me that icon veneration should be an issue in the category of what Paul talks about in Romans 14 with the "strong" and "weak" in the faith. If the Orthodox could have just said that the "strong" in faith know that they can venerate icons and honor God by doing so, while the "weak" in faith believe they should not venerate icons and that they are honoring God by refraining, that would bring me a lot closer to becoming Orthodox.
There is a lot about Orthodoxy that I am drawn to, but this overemphasis and requirement of icon veneration is a stumbling block for me. I also worry about the potential for it to become idolatry for the common Christian engaging in piety at home. If the person depicted is a saint who has achieved theosis, does this mean one is venerating an image of a quasi-divine figure? Similarly, when one prays to Mary with language that assigns to her roles that are actually filled by Christ, and she is a partaker of the divine nature, this seems to me to go beyond what should be allowed. I worry about the potential to cross that line.
@@joelbecker5389 I cannot agree more with you. I'm also drawn to Orthodoxy, but the ritual damning of every other Christian truly drives me insane. I just have never had an Orthodox Christian be able to answer my question if someone repents and believes and lives their live devoted to Christ and His teachings, but never goes to an Orthodox Church, is that person saved? To me, that is a blatantly obvious answer and they, instead of using Scripture, use tradition and what Christians several centuries removed from the apostles dogmatically introduced in ecumenical councils. At the end of the day, what is the bigger authority? Scripture or tradition? Seems to me that one of them is unchanging while the other clearly is not. I can't see God damning someone to hell for legitimately following the Lord Jesus, but since they weren't Orthodox, it profited nothing. Absolutely against Scripture.
@@exag0raorthodox don’t teach that you to hell for not venerating icons. “An anathema is a formal declaration that a person or teaching is improper. This is a public proclamation of the Church after a conciliar process. To become anathematized, therefore, generally requires causing such an enormous headache through public teaching that you get the attention of the entire episcopacy of the Church.
On the other hand, if you are not causing that much headache, you may get locally disciplined and/or excommunicated by your confessor. If you cause more of a stir, you may get public discipline and/or disavowal by a group of local bishops.
If you're just guilty of being wrong, you usually just deal with that in confession. We're all wrong about something. If we got excommunicated just for being wrong, there would be no communicants.”
Also we believe don’t believe that we can say who goes to hell or not. The lord has mercy on whom he wills. Being Protestant doesn’t mean you’re going to hell. It means the odds are against you. That is the orthodox position. God bless
I would like it if you could address some of the language we use like “adoring the cross”. That seems to not fit neatly into your categories.
Its a accreation claiming its apotolic is just a lie.
Did you watch the video?
Excellent, God bless!
Türkiye de mi yaşıyorsunuz? Eğer evet ise, daha çok Kalvinizm'e kayan bir Protestanım. Acaba Türkçe önerdiğiniz içerikler var mı Ortodoks görüşünün neden doğru olduğuna dair?
Excellent video David!
is this a response to the david ortlund truth unites video?
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, NOR serve them
(nor meaning don't do either of these things. I've certainly seen many an orthodox Christian bowing to icons.)
Icons are stumbling block Holy Spirit intentionally placed in order to prevent unbelievers from joining Lord's Church and messing around defiling Lord's Bride.
I think this also has more so to do with how people practice icon veneration. Its the way that people idolize the idols. This is similar to people in Word of Faith. If you tell people in word of faith they should not hyper fixate on being wealthy.They gaslight you and say, "are you saying christians should not be rich?!" No that isn't what I am saying! But whether you are rich or poor, that should not be your measuring stick in your walk with Christ! In similar manner, whether you honor icons or not, it should not be a dogma in the christian life.
Nice video, god bless!
Thank you
So God contained himself in a box aka the ark? How does that work?
He contained Himself in a womb so
@@diansc7322 He didn’t, God had his presence in the Ark.
@@internautaoriginal9951 he didn't what?
@@internautaoriginal9951 Are you denying the incarnation?
He contains Himself inside the heart of every Orthodox Christian.
👍
Oriental orthodox aren't monophysites they are miaphysites, and those are very different things.
With all due respect, sir...
Oriental Orthodox like such as Coptic Orthodox Church, consider Monophysites as heresy; instead, The Oriental Church believe in Miaphysites....
MONO- or MIA-? A discussion of the terminology
Nowadays it's not that rare to see people discussing the difference between two terms, which supposed to be synonyms: "monophysites" and "miaphysites". Today we're going to explain that the second one cannot exists in frame of the Greek language.
Attention! This text is neither to consider any kind of theological problematic not to offend anyone's feelings. So to say, we're diving into the waters of pure philology.
***
Sometimes people begin the conversation with analysing so-called "mia physis" and "mono physis" (just like that, written in any language, except of Greek). However, this makes no sense in the first place. As there's no such a word as "μόνο" in ancient Greek, it was only used as a prefix. The vocabulary of modern Greek includes this word, although it is an adverb, not an adjective.
We do find the word «μόνος» in the ancient language, which means "one/ the only/ lonely". There's also «μόνον» , which is neuter singular of the same word, sometimes this form works as an adverb too.
(We should remind here that ancient and modern Greek have grammatical genders, cases and numbers, so as German does e.g.)
That's why it's grammatically incorrect to say «μόνο φύσις». This word group cannot exist due to the rule of concordance of genders! The word "φύσις" is feminine, so an adjective with it would look like "μόνη".
The cardinal numeral "one" in ancient Greek also happens to be masculine, feminine and neuter, but these forms are formed from various stems - "εἷς, μία, ἕν". It is this word that is most often used in all phrases when something is single. It has no special meaning of "integrity of two" as opposed to "oneness". For example, it is used in combination with "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5): «εἷς κύριος μία πίστις ἓν βάπτισμα». Baptism is just one, the only one. And faith is the only one, as well as God. They don't consist of any components, therefore "one nature" should be translated as «μία φύσις»
We understood, that the only way to say "one nature" is «μία φύσις», not «μόνο φύσις». Nonetheless in Greek we say «μονοφυσιτισμός» (monophysitism), not «μιαφυσιτισμός» (miaphystitism). Why is that?
The answer is also quite simple. If we're to construct a compound, we have to use the stem «μον-». This doesn't seem too strange, if we will take in consideration that "εἷς, μία, ἕν" has no common stem and, accordingly, the same formant for word formation cannot be "extracted" from these three words. We should put an emphasis on this point one more time: the word "μιαφυσιτισμός" does not exist within Greek. Greek words just cannot be formed like that. There is a "monograph", but there's no "miagraph", we can write a "monogram", and not a "heinogram". Although the "one God" is "εἷς God" (as in EF. 4:6: "εἷς Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων"), but our faith is still "μονοθεϊσμός" ("monotheism"), not "heisteism".
@@disgustingcyclops6423 The etymology of miaphysitism refers to the wording used by saint Cyril of Alexandria which we both venerate. It doesn't matter if the word doesn't make sense in the Greek because it refers to Cyril's terminology for describing christ and thus the fact that it could not normally be constructed is not important.
@@vasilistheocharis164 There is no such word as miaphysitism. It is used only by illiterate people, like moderate monophysites. Can you find me at least one ancient document in ancient Greek that uses this word? Why doesn't it matter? Why doesn't it matter? St. Cyril of Alexandria does not have this terminology.
@@vasilistheocharis164 You also lack scientific facts. let's ask someone who understands Cyril of Alexandria about this? Hans van Loon, Doctor of Theology, Researcher at the Center for the Study of Early Christianity, Amsterdam (Netherlands):
"The final conclusion of this study is that Cyril of Alexandria is not a Miaphysitic theologian, as he is often portrayed. Before reuniting with the Antiochians, he hardly spoke about the “one nature of the Word incarnate.” His language is much more Diophysitic. In the writings we have studied, the word φύσις almost never - probably never - means “separate existence”; rather, it has three main meanings:
(1) It can refer to a common nature, to a reality shared by consubstantial individuals;
(2) To an individual nature that combines an individual existence - not necessarily a separate existence - with an entity;
(3) To all individuals taken together belonging to the same nature.
In his trinitarian theology, Cyril adopted the word usage of the Cappadocians, and φύσις usually indicates the divine general nature, and sometimes the Deity as such. In the Christological context, this term can take each of three meanings.
Other expressions in Cyril's Christological texts are sometimes also mistakenly perceived as Miaphysitic. Expressions such as "natural unity" and "natural unity" are Diophysitic in the sense that they denote the union of two natures, two entities belonging to the Aristotelian category of substance. They do not imply that the result is one nature, but rather that the two natures are combined into one separate reality. In addition, the terms φύσις and ὑπόστασις are not synonyms. While “nature” combines the concepts of existence and essence, “hypostasis” means only real existence.
In a meaningful sense, “hypostasis” may indicate a separate existence, but Cyril usually adds definitions such as “separate” and “independent” to denote the separateness of something that exists in reality. When it is said about the Word that it has united with its flesh in hypostasis (καθ’ ὑπόστασιν), and when it is called “one hypostasis”, it indicates that the Logos, together with his humanity, is one separate reality, one living being. When Christ is called “one incarnate nature”, this is done by analogy with the “one human nature”: as two natures - souls and bodies - are united into one individual human nature, so the divine nature of the Logos and his flesh are united into the “one incarnate nature of the Word”. But if a person's individual nature, which is the union of body and soul, corresponds to a human common nature, then there is no such common nature that corresponds to the “one embodied nature of the Word.” In this sense, Cyril's use of the word φύσις in the formula μία φύσις is an anomaly.
The concept of “only in speculation” is applied by the Archbishop of Alexandria not to the very natures of Christ, but to their separation. The natures themselves are really existing individual natures, which are not separate realities, but rather connected into one separate reality. In order to contemplate each of the natures separately, the mind can separate them from each other. But if the separation occurs not only in the mind, but also in practice, then two Christs are obtained.
Πρόσωπον is not synonymous with nor φύσις or ὑπόστασις. While in biblical quotations and allusions to them, this word retains the meaning of “face” as a part of the body, in Cyril's own language, this term means “face” as an intelligent being capable of communicating with other similar beings. Since πρόσωπον is ambiguous in the sense that it can refer not only to a real person, but also to a grammatical “person” in the text, Cyril compares πρόσωπον and ὑπόστασις several times. The addition of ὑπόστασις ensures that Cyril means not just a person as a grammatical category in the text, but a real person. When Emmanuel is called “one πρόσωπον”, it means that the incarnate Word acts as one person in relation to people. This one person sometimes acts as a God, sometimes as a man.
The main reason for Cyril's emphasis on the unity of the person of Christ is soteriological. The archbishop gives various arguments. Christ is the boundary between the divine and human nature; it is through him that we come into contact with the divine nature so that we can become partakers of the divine nature. In Christ Himself, first of all, human nature receives the Holy Spirit, incorruption, righteousness, and holiness. Since He is also God, humanity, especially the soul, receives stability in Him, thanks to which it does not sin, and the Spirit does not leave it again; this resilience is transmitted to those who believe in him. And if the same person were not both God and man, then a simple person would die, and this would have no benefit for our salvation. Precisely because He is also God, His death can be a ransom for our lives.
By focusing on the formula μία φύσις, the consultations between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches did not really base their agreed statements on the Christology of their “common Father” Cyril of Alexandria, as they claim… If they had based their agreement on the Christology of the Archbishop of Alexandria, it would have been more Diophysitic."
_________________________
Source: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden; Boston, 2009. P. 578-580
@@vasilistheocharis164 The fact that this word is impossible when using ancient Greek already ruins the thinking of moderate monophysites, whom it is more correct to call ὁ μετριοπαθὴς μονοφυσιτισμός. so stop wasting my time. Bb.
🤔
*Exodus 25*
_22 _*_"And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat,_*_ from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel."_
David worshipped God *AT* his footstool, because that is where God communed with his people. God will meet them there. David did not worship the footstool.
*Psalm 99*
_5 "Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship _*_AT_*_ his footstool; for _*_HE_*_ is holy."_
How much do you have to hate God to corrupt his Word in such way?
Repent and believe.
*Isaiah 42*
_8 "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, _*_neither my praise to graven images."_*
*Isaiah 44*
_9 "They that make a graven image are _*_all of them_*_ vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed."_
Graven images are forbidden in the Bible. Icons are graven images.
you don’t know what graven images are. graven images are images made to worship false gods.
otherwise u would have to say God was in idolatry for having Moses build him an image with 2 images on top of it to be venerated.
u would have to say Solomon committed idolatry for putting images all over the temple.
image in greek is “eikon” an icon is an image. and God made us in his image. and Jesus is the visible Image of God.
by ur logic, God committed idolatry against himself.
graven image in Hebrew means an idol, which means false god.
but everything in the world is Gods so he using images that are made for veneration towards him. if an image is made to be venerated towards demons, that image is an idol bc idols are demons.
@ty_m02 Moses made a bronze serpent or snake at the command of God. Therefore, the bronze serpent was not an idol. It cannot be an idol since God directed Moses to create it. Notice that those who looked on the bronze serpent lived. Otherwise, they died. They lived because they placed their trust in God’s command to look at the bronze serpent. They obeyed God and looked. Their trust was in the Almighty God of Israel - not in the inanimate bronze serpent. The next reference in the Old Testament to Moses’ serpent or snake is 2 Kings 18:4.
Jesus Comment About The Bronze Serpent
The last reference to Moses’ serpent or snake occurs in the New Testament in John 3:14. Jesus spoke the following words,
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. John 3:14-15 (NASB)
If we compare Jesus’ statement here to Moses command to the people in Numbers 21:9, we learn there is a tremendous parallel. Any Israelite who wanted to live had to look on the serpent and Jesus’ point was that anyone who looked on Him (Jesus) would also live. However, those who looked on the bronze serpent did not die a physical death, but those who look on Christ will die a physical death but not a spiritual death.
Humans building icons is forbidden by God.
Temple images in the Old Testament were illustrations of what is in heaven. They were never worshipped.Looking at the bronze serpent was not worship, but to obey God.
You're trying to make a false equivalency.
Icons are forbidden. Bowing to them, praying to them and adoring them is idol worship.
@@ty_m02I gave a detailed response. Where is it?
icons arent graven...they are painted
A graven image or representation of anything that is revered, or believed to convey spiritual power.
♡
What of Epiphanius of Salamis?
His letters? The Greek(original versions)were speaking of him removing a “blasphemous” image from a Church. Later Latin versions add that it was an image of Christ or something , so it’s obviously a twisting of what was the true teaching.
@@ryrocks9487 Ok Go to the Greek it was an Image , what would an image be that his fellow Christians were adoring that he then offered to replace?
@@babd3121 It was a blasphemous image. He didn’t say image, he said a blasphemous one. No one even thought to use this as an AntiChristian document until the Latin iconoclasts doctored it.
@@ryrocks9487 When have the Latins ever been Iconoclasts, it was the Orthodox Bishop of Rome who refered to the Greeks as Iconoclasts under the Isurian.
@@babd3121 Let’s brush up on some history real quick, shall we? No one denies that the East had iconoclastic heresy at times. But in the time immediately before and after the seventh Ecumenical Council, the Latins and Franks were the iconoclastic ones.
Hope this helps!
🔥💖🔥🔥🔥
You are making some twisted inferences in your scriptures, David. Matthew 4:10 is not giving permission to worship whomever you want, as long as you serve God alone. That makes zero sense. Especially in light of Exodus 20 which you bring up next: "You shall not bow down to them or serve them..." The 2nd commandment isn't only about gods and it's not only about engravings or statues. The commandment clearly states it encompasses any likeness of anything that is in heaven, earth, or the waters.
People often bring up God giving building instructions for the cherubim for the ark or instructions to make a snake staff as permission to make their own statues or likenesses as long as it is in service to God. That's not the way it works. God is pure goodness. God is also pure justice, pure mercy, pure grace, etc. If He commands something to be made that is seemingly contradictory to us, He is allowing it for His glory. Let's examine this quickly. At one point in scripture, God calls for the annihilation of Canaanite women and children. God's pure justice was being done here due to His being outside of space and time and knowing all consequences. There was also a time when the Israelites went out on their own, carrying the ark, on a military mission that wasn't blessed. They lost and the ark was confiscated. Do you see now? If God commands something to be done for Himself, it doesn't contradict His commands to us.
The bible absolutely does not allow icon veneration. As for bowing. Some seems to be allowed in the sense of a show of station. There are other times when the person bowing is obviously doing so out of a sense of worship/adoration. Many times in scripture, someone has bowed to an angel to worship and the angel has told them to stand up. I might make some people extra upset here. I'm sorry. But even a crucifix is taking graven images too far. A simple cross is sufficient reminder of what our Lord did for us. Keeping him on the cross even after he has been resurrected is not the position to keep him in.
Those who are deceased are alive in Jesus Christ and in paradise with him now. That doesn't mean saints are aware that people on earth are kissing or bowing before their likeness. They very well may be praying for all of mankind, but neither do we have proof they can hear or receive our prayers. I very well may pick up the phone and ask a friend to pray and intercede for me. This does not extend to prayers beyond the veil. Jesus taught us twice in the scriptures how to pray. Both times, it was directly to the Father. Jesus explains that, after he is back in heaven, we should pray in his name directly to the Father, because the Father loves us.
If you've made it this far. Thanks for your time. The video David made has scriptural inferences, based on incorrect understanding, but no real evidence. We should fear the Lord our God and use caution when it comes to making images or likenesses that pull our eyes away from the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. God bless you all.
Icons are stumbling block Holy Spirit placed in order to prevent unbelievers from joining Lord's Church.
Before talking about this verse, to understand it well, let us remember that when God gave His commandments to Moses, the Hebrew people left an idolatrous country and, wherever they were, these people remained surrounded by idols. By specifying, God contradicts the type of worship found among their neighbors such as Egypt, Babylon, Canaan, etc.
“_the sky_” is associated, for example, with the worship of the stars; “the earth” is associated with the cult of agricultural fertility; “the waters” are associated with cults such as that paid to the Nile. In this regard, we should not worry about divine figures that do not exist, beyond our imagination. God is therefore not fighting against an evil that would be inherent in the images, but against the false beliefs and related practices of the Israelites.
indeed, god himself would later commission holy images of “things existing in heaven” such as gold-covered cherubim at the ends of the ark of the covenant (*cf*. **ex 25:18-20 **), and others to be placed in the most sacred place of the Temple of Jerusalem: the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:18; 29; 32: 34-35). As well as images of “_things existing on the earth_” such as oxen (1 Kings 7:25) lions (1 Kings 10:19-20) plants such as lilies, palms, pomegranates, etc. (1 Kings 7: 8; 22; 28)
In the same vein, when the Israelites were bitten by snakes in the desert ( Num 21:6), God ordered Moses to make an image of a snake in bronze and to place on his crook, and “_whoever looks at him will be healed_” (Num 21:8). It is very clearly a pious image that Jesus Christ explains as a mystical typology of his crucifixion (Jn 3:14). Those who turn to his Holy Cross will be saved from the bite of the true serpent: Satan.
Also, returning to the commandments, let us be clear:
• You will have no other gods than Me.
• Do we have any gods other than God? **No**.
• You shall not make for yourself idols or images of anything in heaven, on earth, under the earth, or in the waters.
• Do we make images of these gods (which we do not have)? **No**.
• You shall not worship them, nor serve them; for I am the Lord your God, a jealous God.
• Do we worship the images of these gods (which we do not have)? **No**.
So it's not idolatry. On the other hand, as we have just seen, every image to the glory of God, every image exclusive to God according to His jealousy, is commanded by God Himself. Let us also note that Jesus Christ is himself an icon of God by God Himself. It is certainly appropriate that adoration be given to God alone; but what about veneration? Is it permissible to pay honor, homage
Face to the ground we prostrated ourselves before Joseph (*cf*. **Gen 42:6**) or before the prophet Elijah (*cf*. ** 2 Kings 2:15**). If it was fundamentally wrong to bow to the created (Joseph and Elijah), wouldn't the saints have reprimanded these people for such an act? Wouldn't God have condemned Joseph and Elijah because they thought they were God? The apostle Paul says to give “honor to whom you owe honor” (*cf*. **Rom 13:7**), and if some are worthy of honor, it is the saints and their relics. Paul's cloths were miraculous (*cf*. **Ac **19:12****) like the bones of Elisha (*cf.* **2 Kings 13:21**)
Matter can be consecrated, sanctified, for such purposes and are conduits of divine energies. We also see this when Jesus spits on the ground and makes clay to heal the blind man's eyes (*cf*. **Jn 9:6**). Jesus could have just said the word and healed the man, but he willingly chose to use that mud to perform the miracle. This incarnational principle is the same as that of the Sacraments. The Scriptures (to which the icons belong) are revered because through them we read the sacred works of the Lord and are sanctified by his divine energies.
the Angel asks John to get up, it is only because the apostle John intended to worship the Angel.
“It was I, Jean, who saw and heard all this; once the words and visions were finished, I fell at the feet of the Angel who had shown me everything, to worship him. » (Revelation 22, 8-9)
It is obvious that if John had simply wanted to show respect to the Angel, he would not have reproved him, but he did so only because the apostle wanted to worship him. It's simple. Otherwise, how can we understand that Joshua threw himself at the feet of an Angel, even prostrating himself before him, without the Angel rebuking him (Joshua 5, 14) ? Or what about Balaam who prostrated himself before the Angel of Yahweh, his face to the ground (Numbers 22, 31) ?
@@joboy_off If you read my initial comment, I already addressed most of what you cite. God was clear about not making graven images of anything, not just star gods, earth gods, or water gods. "Any graven images of anything" means anything.
I addressed bowing due to station and bowing to worship. I addressed God commanding works to be built not giving us permission to do it. It can absolutely be a "do what I say, not what I do" situation with God. He can command the death of people to suit His eternal plan. It doesn't give us the right to wage war without his blessing (that's how the ark got stolen) or to make graven images without his express permission.
The danger, like the snake on the staff, is that inevitably, people start to worship. That's why it had to be broken into pieces. If you stare at an icon, you begin to memorize that face and that's who you pray to - not the invisible person you don't know the face of. Why be rebellious? Why not err on the side of caution with our jealous God?
@ToeTag1968 as I explained it was the problem of the Israelites but it still did not answer the question if God forbids ANY IMAGE ABSOLUTELY ANY i don't understand why he ask to do it 5 chapters later
The bible says Do not make graven images, you say make graven images. Jesus said call no one on Earth your father(in a spiritual sense), you call your priests father. Jesus said there is one intercessor between God and man, Jesus Christ, you have rejected this and started praying to saints and Mary. Jesus said do not pray in vain repetitions like the heathen, the rosary is literally just vain repetitions. Jesus said 'Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, only those who do the will of my father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day 'Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name and done many miracles in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me you who practice lawlessness!'. He also said 'Why do you call me Lord, Lord but not do as I say' and 'If you love me keep my commands'. Now as you have seen if you want to continue with these blasphemies Jesus will disown you on the last day and you will be sent to hell. How can you ever be saved if you are committing multiple sins and blasphemies INSIDE CHURCH. Please guys it is not about being right I was a catholic 17 years but what churches say doesn't matter, what the bible says is what matters and if you see any church deviating from the word of God and teaching you it is ok to sin, flee from that church we are talking about eternity here its not worth it to think you are right your whole life only to be told by Jesus 'I never knew you, depart from me you who practice lawlessness'. God bless you all, I hope you can see the truth.
icons are not graven tho?
@@diansc7322 I was a catholic for 17 years, please don't try to convince me there are no statues in your church. John 4:24 'God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship him in spirit and truth'. In Mark 7:13 Jesus says 'Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that'. Please drop your pride and stop trying to defend your traditions, its not worth going to hell for eternity just because you wanted to pray to statues and icons. Also I stated so many other things please stop trying to be right and listen to the word of God. God bless you I hope you can come to the truth.
Someone didn’t watch the video
L
What do you call your dad?
I grew up Roman Catholic, we had stained glass windows, and pictures along the walls of the gospel. It actually hindered me from the gospel being personal, into thinking it was more corporate. Having said that, I don’t think icon veneration is a good idea. I heard the gospel when I was 21, and God converted me a few weeks after hearing the gospel. There was absolutely no value to icon veneration based on my experience. To each their own.
The thing is you didn’t even try them, your using your experience from an entirely different sect that doesn’t use icons to say they don’t do anything, I grew up protestant and always had a negative view on icons, but I been looking into orthodoxy and one time at a church I had the urge to buy one and felt so excited, ever since having these icons around as a reminder of Christ and God I have been able to set a lot of things straight in my life
@@Leed9 Ok, so you are one that needs an image. No one in the first century in the Bible looked to images though. I personally think it is strange to light candles in front of an image. I grew up Roman Catholic btw. I just can’t see how God looks at that in a favorable way. But to each their own. God bless.
@@soteriology400 in exodus 25:18 the Jews were instructed to make 2 cherubim made of gold, these images are a reminder of God, it’s so easy to forgot Gods there, but having portraits of Jesus and the saints reminds us and inspires us to be holy and strive to sin less
@@Leed9 I have never heard of the cheribum being a reminder of God. Here is a commentary I found on it.
"The cherubim of gold looked one towards another, and both looked downward toward the ark. It denotes the angels' attendance on the Redeemer, their readiness to do his will, their presence in the assemblies of saints, and their desire to look into the mysteries of the gospel. It was covered with a covering of gold, called the mercy-seat."
They didn't exactly light candles to it.
@@soteriology400they lit candles in the temple also the candles just represent the icons being imitations of the real image.