The Difference Between Icons and Idols
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ย. 2022
- What makes an icon different from an idol, and therefore proper for use in Christian worship?
Patreon: / bibleillustrated
Subscribe Star: www.subscribes...
Main channel: / @bibleillustrated
Bible Illustrated main page: bible-illustra...
Facebook page: / bibleillustrated
Twitter: / bibllustrated
Instagram: / bibleillustrated
Subreddit: / bibleillustrated
I'm glad you brought up the "no photographs, no youtube, no video, etc."
If the average iconoclastic calvinist wants to take their heresy to its logical conclusion they should gouge out their eyes to avoid possibly falling into idolatry :^)
Many of you really need to cool it throwing around this word “heresy”. It’s extremely divisive, and even if you are technically correct, it’s not helpful. Humble yourself in the way you speak the truth instead of stirring up and accusing. Most Protestants are not heretical but ignorant, and calling them heretics will not show them a better way.
thats sophistry. the image spoken is bowing or worshiping something as a mediator to God in a spiritual context. TV or TH-cam does not fall in this catagory
I am an pentecostal. For the first time I was attending today an Orthodox church in my city. I have heard some arguments but you nailed it. Very easy to understand. Thank you!
Me too! Well, I was raised pentecostal and now I'm Orthodox. Hit me up if you have any pentecostal-specific type questions 🤓
Glory to God!
Yes! Attending an Orthodox or Catholic Church makes God become so real. It’s the Church the apostles left us, after all.
Come to Orthodox🥰
The fact is showing affection to a painting, statue through prayer is an idol. They like to say do you have pictures of loved ones in your home? Yeah, but I don’t communicate with them through a picture! This is clearly forbidden in scripture. Furthermore the icons are imaginative images that are not the likeness of the saint they portraying. Those that have passed on cannot hear you. There is one mediator between God And man. One means one!
This practice was forbidden in early church writings. It didn’t come in to practice until later.
They new this and that is why you have the Roman church with 3D icons and the Orthodox Church with 2D icons. 3D icons are forbidden. This is nothing more than a word game and trying to spin scripture. This is why we have scripture as the final authority. Man’s heart is corrupt.
Based
The Virgin Iconoclast
Vs
The Chad Iconophile
Great explanation Bojan. Icons are also called Windows to Heaven because of the perspective that is represented in them. They represent a greater reality than what is seen through our eyes in this life on earth.
Bojan, the prohibition of images in Judaism was articulated in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 4 starting at verse 15. While the Exodus text simply forbids the practice, Deuteronomy not only forbids but also gives the reasons for why that is. “you saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire.” Therefore you did not see God, you don’t know how He looks like and thus you should not make an image depicting Him. However with the Incarnation God the Son came among us. “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only Son, begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth”, Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 14.Therefore, what we have not seen on mount Sinai, we have seen on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration, when the 2nd person of the Trinity the Lord Jesus showed Himself in His full Godly and Imperial glory, full of grace and truth. Through the eyes of the Apostles, who have witnessed this we have seen this as well. So, the Old Testament interdiction to depict God, because we have not seen Him, is no longer relevant in the New Testament, where the Son of God revealed Himself in all His glory at Transfiguration.
This is so helpful, thank you.
@@EM-ox3rw thank you too.
"I am the Bojan in question"
Love it.
Off topic, but I saw "Rd Bojan Teodosijevic" on our psalter reading list and thought nah, it probably is just a coincidence. But it actually is you - that's really great haha. Glad you happened to join us. Greetings from St Sava's in Allen, Texas.
I wanted to say thank you, Bojan. You were instrumental to leading me to Holy Orthodoxy.
Neat and clear! Thanks, Bojan! Good episode
I actually confessed to committing Iconoclasm in Confession one time, so now I need to rebuild the Icon Corner which has since transformed into the icon wall.
icons are not cultic images they are decorations of the direction of prayer, the old testament had this too with the cherubim
Don't forget about the arc of the covenant
Thank you Bojan, that was a great brief overview on the topic of icons which are great for attention deficit disordered people like me. Also look up Saint Nicolo/ Nicholas of Trani. He is venerated by both the Eastern and Western church post schism. For the Orthodox he is a holy fool and for the Catholics he is a patron saint for those afflicted with mental illness.
While praying for “dead” Saints in the Church may not have occurred prior to Christ’s Resurrection, Iconography per se in the Church appears to be a continuation of Jewish practice, which certainly predates Christ’s resurrection. This is seen as you point out in the depictions commanded to Moses in the Tabernacle, but also in excavations like those at Duropos.
The jews didn't venerate the images of Cherubim.
@@dustindustindontworry-jz8dh They venerated the entire Ark.
also like God commanded the cheribs to be built on the ark
Hebrews did not have to kiss the cherubs lol
@@disguisedcentennial835they bowed down to the Ark though
@@kuafer3687 only the high priest seen the ark....
This is the first actually helpful video I have seen on this topic. Thank you.
Honestly i understand why some Christians would be against icons/statues or saints veneration in general. Personally i use both in my practice because at the end of the day its about worshipping the trinity
God bless you Bojan! Hvala za ovaj snimak
Excellent video. Thank you, Reader Bojan.
Don't know if you've listened to the Lord of Spirits podcast series, but they cover idols and idolatry, and how those functioned, *a lot*.
Hey the question was my question thank you for answering🥰😄
People see also Saints as "little gods". I like to think of them more as mirrors (reflect Christs light). What is your take on it?
I myself see them as I see fellow humans, God can use them to help others and to show Himself to us.
While the average human may or may not show us Christ, the saints definitely show us Christ.
We are called to be gods by grace in Jesus Christ; We are called sons of God; Children of God, in the eschaton, will be made perfect as God is perfect; No more sin, unto the ages of ages!
Therefore, those Saints in paradise, who are enjoying the presence of God, I think are rightly called gods, because their destiny as such is assured.
You might grant that Orthodox Christians on earth are gods-in-training, and we will be confirmed in death for honor or dishonor at the Judgement.
May we be merciful to ourselves and others, that we may obtain these glorious gifts as the reward for loving, faithful obedience to God!
Glory to Thee, O Lord!
Thanks for the informative video! Your accent is admirable😅
Hey Bojan, greetings from Greece. What's your favourite Dostoevsky novel, and why is it Brothers Karamazov?
To venerate and worship in dictionary both say mean same depending on dictionary used : to adoration, respect, to worship and revere. An object of veneration or worship it says.
לְהַעֲרִיץ in hebrew venerate is to
admire, adore, venerate, worship, revere, idolize. Worship in greek is to praise or venerate.
Think denial here and ignoring obvious. He talks right around it. Honor and respect is fine. Art work is fine but praying to or at venerating, worshiping like objects icons is idolatry in old testament and new. The first church discovered archeologists uncovered in jordan they did not find any icons or art work on the walls. The destroying of sacred art in the iconoplast era prompted doctrines to protect the Art and in came the icon ideology
DEPENDING on the dictionary. Word concept fallacy. Words can mean different things in different contexts. Obviously not all dictionaries agree on what veneration and worship mean. Just because some conflate the meanings does not mean that the orthodox mean the same thing by the terms, because obviously they don’t. Synagogues pre-christs incarnation had iconography. Just because one church didn’t have it doesn’t mean anything. There are plenty of pre nicene churches that did.
I am an iconoclast, but Christians have a different dictionary than secularists.
Wow thank you so much for answering my question I appreciate it you gave it a whole video that's amazing I would love in the future videos could you answer the question what is the meaning of worship of angels what is the meaning of that thank you so much love ya bojan .☦❤
Can you write your own icons? Have you written your own icons? Can Orthodox Christians get icons they wrote themselves blessed? Who in the Orthodox Church can bless icons?
So an icon is a representation of an idea. The veneration of an icon is honoring/worshipping honoring the idea/person represented in that representation. But where in the words of Jesus does He command us to do this. Where in His own words does He make it a requirement for salvation. These are obviously rhetorical questions because He never did. I do not mean to offend anyone but iconography just seems like an unnecessary concept. There may be nothing wrong with it in theory and it may actually be used by God to fulfill his will but Jesus is alive and He must be worshiped in spirit and in truth. A painting/picture will never be more than what it already is. Peace.
But its a tradition, Scriptures tells us to follow Tradition. Theologically, Icons are seen as a reflection of the incarnation (God became human) and it was also used in the early Church and early Christians had this practice, wrote about it and defended it and also the Bible tells us to follow Church
1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing.
2. 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.”
This is the accurate translation.
3. Origen(184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [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.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.)
4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for
"the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. 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."
5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "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.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9).
Orthodox keep on attempting to justify the mandated veneration of icons (under the threat of damnation) by saying they aren't idols... but that doesn't matter.
The inconvenient reality is that we have no instruction or example from Christ, the apostles, or in the practice of the early Church that demonstrates that icon veneration was a part of the Gospel, let alone mandatory. Further, we have repeated instruction in the NT from apostles and angels that the veneration of people and even angels -- anyone or anything apart from God -- is wrong.
This doesn't prohibit icons in and of themselves. Images are perfectly fine for the purpose of art, remembrance, or instruction. However, their veneration and the mandating thereof is highly problematic. The claim that the veneration passes on to the subject of the icon really makes no difference.
We can come up with countless practices and then claim that they are permitted (or mandated) because they do not constitute idol worship. Obviously, such reasoning is deeply flawed. The fact that something doesn't constitute idolatry doesn't make it good nor justify mandating it under the threat of anathema.
It's not icon veneration in itself that's mandatory, but recognizing that it is proper to do because to deny that it is, is to indirectly deny the Incarnation (wherein God became depictable on account of becoming man). The anathemas are in response to specific iconoclasts in a time period, and it's improper to summarize all of this into "the Church said you have to venerate icons or you're condemned".
Secondly, both Gabriel and Elizabeth profusely venerated Mary. There are times where veneration is discouraged, and times where they are not. Israelite kings were certainly venerated without reservation.
@@seg162, "It's not icon veneration in itself that's mandatory"
Well, the acts ("fathers") of Nicaea 2 say otherwise, so I will leave it to you to explain which of you is incorrect: The Council of Nicaea 2 or you? The acts CLEARLY state that those who do not venerate icons are condemned.
Further, your attempt to confine and redefine the terms, acts, and canons of the council so as to apply to only an isolated group at the time, if applied to other councils, completely eviscerates all councils of any relevance whatsoever.
To claim that denying veneration of icons is somehow a denial of the Incarnation is, frankly, insane. Are there some who deny the Incarnation who also deny icon veneration? Certainly, but one does not entail the other any more than wearing pants or having an absurd mustache makes one a murderous maniac (e.g., Hitler). Indeed, for your claim to be true, then you would have to assert that both Peter (in Acts) and angels in heaven (Revelation/Apocalypse) denied the Incarnation.
"Secondly, both Gabriel and Elizabeth profusely venerated Mary."
No one was commanded to prostrate before a pray to Mary as a condition of salvation. No one was condemned for not doing so. N2 asserts that veneration is mandatory and condemns those who do not do it.
"Israelite kings were certainly venerated without reservation."
You are writing in ambiguous generalities in order to try to save your doctrine/belief. Not all Israelite kings were venerated "without reservation." In fact, the claim itself is obviously false. Some certainly were venerated, but the hyperbole of "without reservation" is false on its face, and the "right" reason for this is the king had a special anointing from God. We see in the New Testament, however, that such veneration is rightly reserved for God alone, and not to be given to men or even angels.
I understand and sympathize with your desire to somehow refactor veneration and Nicaea 2 so as to maintain some kind of coherent integrity within Orthodoxy (and perhaps Roman Catholicism), but the attempts to do so only extend and perpetuate the reasoning errors. Isn't it better to just be honest and say "we made a mistake" and move forward?
@@philoalethia *_Well, the acts ("fathers") of Nicaea 2 say otherwise_* You made this large comment without citing anything the acts, and you conflate "acts" with "fathers", which altogether gives the air that you're recycling polemic you're still trying to understand.
*_Further, your attempt to confine and redefine the terms, acts, and canons of the council so as to apply to only an isolated group at the time--_* That's not my aim. Inasmuch as they're doctrinal dogma, they're binding in all times (the point of dogmatic declarations being that they're in fact determined to be the apostolic deposit of faith, or downstream from it). My point is that the canons are shaped the way they are because they're made in the midst of a specific circumstance and against specific figures making specific arguments.
*_To claim that denying veneration of icons is somehow a denial of the Incarnation is, frankly, insane. Are there some who deny the Incarnation who also deny icon veneration? Certainly--_* Among other matters, the iconoclasts believed _God is not depictable._ There's no way to get around the reality that iconoclats generally made this error where they failed to acknowledge that the Incarnation made God visible (and thus theoretically depictable _in his person)._
Their conception of icons being idols was both semantically incorrect, practically inconsistent with actual usage and teaching on the matter, and accused the Church ecumenical (including several saints) of being idolaters for centuries. Iconography has existed in the Church since the ante-Nicene times, and we have archeological findings in churches and catacombs to prove this. We have St. Epiphanius attesting to his opposition while admitting that his was the minority position, as well.
*_No one was commanded to prostrate before a pray to Mary as a condition of salvation._* You're dodging the point being made, and you're unfamiliar with Orthodox doctrine.
*_Some certainly were venerated, but the hyperbole of "without reservation" is false on its face_* No, it's not. It would be normative to greet and generally address kings with veneration-- that's how royalty was treated all throughout human history _as a matter of course._
*_and the "right" reason for this is the king had a special anointing from God._* You're trying to refute my example, but you're left still admitting that Israelite kings were venerated. Even if you say only some of them were, even you realize that you cannot but say that they were venerated. Your next sentence therefore contradicts your point.
Certainly, my parents didn't raise me to prostrate myself to the elderly as a show of worship as if to worship God, but as a show of honoring of another human being. Other cultures with similar practices are the same.
*_I understand and sympathize with your desire to somehow refactor veneration and Nicaea 2 so as to maintain some kind of coherent integrity within Orthodoxy (and perhaps Roman Catholicism), but the attempts to do so only extend and perpetuate the reasoning errors. Isn't it better to just be honest and say "we made a mistake" and move forward?_* God didn't allow the whole of the Church to fall into idolatry for nearly its entire existence, not being able to correct itself from within, only to be sporadically heckled from _without_ nearly two millennia later by adherents of a schismatic sect of a schismatic sect (perhaps itself of a schismatic sect). Even Arianism took longer to die out than the iconoclasm of that time.
Supposing that you had a solid grasp of what you were referring to, your condescension wouldn't have been out of place in the heat of the controversy-- but we are over a millennium away from it, so you're claiming that God made a mistake or failed to correct a grave error.
@@seg162, I'm not going to get drawn into the mire there (i.e., your various ad hominem, genetic, and red herring fallacies). The bottom line is this:
1) The acts of the council of Nicaea 2 clearly state that those who do not venerate icons and those who simply hold that they should not be venerated are anathema. You can try to explain this away all you want, but it is right there, repeatedly, in the acts. (I will grant that it isn't sensible to pretend that such an anathema would be binding on those who have no understanding of the issues in play, but to pretend that such anathemas applied only to some small select group of iconoclasts at the moment is clearly irrational.)
2) Both apostles and angels in the New Testament clearly attest that one should not venerate man or even angels, but only Christ. If we are not to venerate man or angels, then obviously we are not to venerate objects depicting them.
It seems to me that this leaves three options:
a) Those churches participating in Nicaea 2 erred,
b) the apostles and angels in the New Testament erred, or
c) something has changed such that what discouraged or forbidden in the early Church is now not only allowed but mandated.
It seems to me that (a) is the most likely reality, but I am open to a demonstration of (b) or (c).
If you want to venerate icons, then you have fun with that. The problem is when it is claimed that such practices and their related doctrines are apostolic and normative for salvation. There is simply NO evidence supporting that position, and there is strong evidence against it, your attempts to confuse the matter notwithstanding.
@@philoalethia *_I'm not going to get drawn into the mire there (i.e., your various ad hominem, genetic, and red herring fallacies)._* Anybody can rattle off fancy fallacy names and claim that someone else is making them. If you don't want to get into it, then don't bother mentioning it at all.
*_The acts of the council of Nicaea 2 clearly state that those who do not venerate icons and those who simply hold that they should not be venerated are anathema. You can try to explain this away all you want, but it is right there_* Again, you continue to not interface with the theological principles inherent to those anathemas. The fathers of Nicaea II are not declaring anathema to those who merely do not venerate icons-- you do not get excommunicated for not genuflecting to or kissing an icon. Furthermore, there is no "simply hold that there should not be venerated"-- firstly, it is understood that the honor is passed _through_ the icon to the intended recipient. Secondly, the opposition to the Church teaching at hand is itself a specific doctrinal position that worst of all accuses the Church ecumenical of centuries of idolatry. The opposition does not exist in a vacuum.
*_(I will grant that it isn't sensible to pretend that such an anathema would be binding on those who have no understanding of the issues in play, but to pretend that such anathemas applied only to some small select group of iconoclasts at the moment is clearly irrational.)_* Again, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there was a specific controversy with specific issues raised that are addressed in the relevant canons.
*_Both apostles and angels in the New Testament clearly attest that one should not venerate man or even angels, but only Christ._* I have cited cases to the contrary (in addition to what I pointed out, Mary prophesies that "every generation will call her blessed"), so it's mandatory to understand all these cases altogether. My takeaway is that those who refuse veneration seek to educate in their refusal, thus why they don't merely refuse veneration but point to God-- this isn't always necessary, and sometimes honoring a person is what points to God (e.g. in Mary's case, where holding her in high esteem points towards Jesus, who should be worshipped). Even you cannot deny that there were Israelite kings that were venerated, and they were furthermore venerated as a matter of course (as with all royalty throughout history). Again, in the culture of my parents, and in other cultures, full body prostrations are done to others with zero intent to worship them as though they were God.
*_It seems to me that (a) is the most likely reality, but I am open to a demonstration of (b) or (c)._* Your only option, in fact, is "the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church into truth, and allowed it to languish in idolatry for probably all of its existence to the present day". The lack of controversy over images beyond a regional synod whose canons weren't widely copied, Origen, and St. Epiphanius (who admitted that he was in the minority opinion in the Church he continued to serve as bishop), as well as canonized saints well before Nicaea II (such as St. Athanasius) positively expounding on icon veneration, undermines your position. The existence of churches (such as the Duro-Europos church) that were adorned with iconography, as well as catacombs similarly adorned, likewise undermines the idea that this was "discouraged or forbidden".
*_If you want to venerate icons, then you have fun with that. The problem is when it is claimed that such practices and their related doctrines are apostolic and normative for salvation._* Again, the canons do not claim that icon veneration is itself required for salvation, but that _iconoclasm, especially as expressed by the iconoclasts at the time, harbors destructive theological implications._
초대교회(1~2세기)때부터 성부나 성자나 성령님을 그린 이콘이나 성상이 사용되었다는 근거가 있습니까?
Thank you Bojan for the explanation. I did have a question, if the icon is supposed to depict reality - how can we explain the dog headed St. Christopher icon - I think it's supposed to symbolize foreigners, I could be wrong. Would it mean not all icons are literal descriptions of reality.
It depends what you mean by reality! Often female saints are depicted wearing an epitrachelion which they would not have worn in real life...... but the symbolism is more real than depicting them in their actual clothing.
IMO the Reality depicted in Icons embraces not only the fact of the Saint or event, but also its spiritual meaning. The latter aspect explains the lack of strict realism in the depiction. Icons are stylized. They have their own “grammar.”
Loosely related: Bojan, what's your favourite K-Pop idol?
Hi, Bojan. I really like your channel. If you allow, I would ask a question that is in my mind for a while now. At prayers, why are we seeking direct things like health and food? Obviously, He knows better. Maybe there would come a joy from an illness I would caught, maybe I would met with the woman of my life at the hospital(a bit dramatic, but possible). Isn’t it better to just pray for the God’s desire to be as it is? Would I miss the chance of metting the woman of my life because I prayed for my health? Hearing your thoughts on this topic would be great.
I'm not Bojan, but I think that the general approach is this:
"Our Father, Who art in the heavens..."
God's will first, ours in line with His, and may He grant us everything efficacious for our salvation! "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and these things shall be added unto you."
@@nicodemuseam So you agree with the idea that one shall not pray for worldly things like health and food but only for the life and kingdom?
@@ismailtaskran9740
I think, yes. Let me restate:
I believe, according to that prayer, that we should seek above all the will of God; If I desire anything worldly, like money, that I do not have, I qualify this request by asking for it according to His will, like our Lord did in the garden at Gethsemane.
I want or I believe I need this thing, my God, but nevertheless, Thy will be done in me, the sinner.
God knows what we need and He is exceedingly generous in His gifts; I believe we are taught to pray the Our Father multiple times per day and to rely on God's promises, His Providential care for us, to fulfill our requirements for life and salvation!
@@nicodemuseam That is well-explained. Thank you for your care to help. Much appreciated.
@@ismailtaskran9740
The prayer I make most often, by the grace of God, is the Jesus Prayer.
Lord, have mercy! May God bless you, brother!
Hi Bojan, love your videos! I recently became Catholic and I was curious if the Eastern Orthodox have something similar to St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Thanks!
I only ever read the ''idiot's guide'' to Theology of the Body when I was RC. I really found it very helpful and profound. Since becoming EO, I would say that there is nothing in the first section regarding the state of man before fall which would make the EO uncomfortable. The problem comes on the nature of the fall and the nature of sin. Theology of the Body is still deeply rooted in Augustinian concepts of original sin, the EO look deeply into Cain's fall rather than Adam, there are significant differences. Props to JPII however for criticising the damaging dualism of Descartes, the EO feel like the RCs are finally catching up with them!! Even with our different understanding of sin, the work on contraception and marriage is sound, though St John Chrysostom on marriage is better. Orthodoxy stresses the companionship in the marriage bond first and the fecundity (for the sake of the kingdom) arises from this.
Moai are just old stone memes, not idols in the thumbnail.
🗿
@@caseydubois3645 🗿
Pure Sophistry. Icon is the greek word for image. God says not to make any image of God or heaven or animals on the earth for worship. This is what Orthodox and Catholics do. The bible doesnt define what idolatry is "thy shalt not bow down unto them nor worship them" you bow before icons and show them worth in a spiritual context. worship means "worthship" to show worth. "they are not like idols of the pagans" ok so if i burnt your icon would you view it as me burning God? of course you would. its an idol
so lets bypass when GOD told moses to put cherubim on the ark of the covenant. and when Solomon made 15 foot tall cherubim statues in the temple and when they bowed in front of the ark. or the Duro Europos synagogue which is from the 2nd century that is covered with icons. doesnt matter if you like it or not icons have always been a thing and they have always been venerated.
If I burned a Bible would you be like "good, that was an idol"?
Real simple way to resolve the conundrum, stop doing it.
First.
Ahhh, yes. The whale separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place
ρяσмσѕм