Christianity Lounge

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This is 1000% false. Have you ever attended an Orthodox Liturgy and spoken to a Priest about your concerns? I guarantee they can address and fully explain any concerns you may have.

Priests and smells and bells do not change the history. I've been to an Orthodox liturgy a few times. A friend of mine just got married. I found it unconvincing everytime I've gone.

The whole time, I'm staring at the images of Christ and thinking about the Second Commandment. I'm hearing the prayers to Mary and I'm thinking about how "there is one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus." Not to mention the homily (preaching) is only about 10 minutes long.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Priests and smells and bells do not change the history. I've been to an Orthodox liturgy a few times. A friend of mine just got married. I found it unconvincing everytime I've gone.

The whole time, I'm staring at the images of Christ and thinking about the Second Commandment. I'm hearing the prayers to Mary and I'm thinking about how "there is one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus." Not to mention the homily (preaching) is only about 10 minutes long.

Perhaps if you instead tried thinking about and focusing on Christ in a humble way, and praying to Him for discernment, you might have a different experience? Just an idea. If you go in there with a negative attitude and thinking it's all wrong and not being open you probably aren't going to get much out of it.

Regarding the second commandment, this pertains to idolatry, for example worshiping created images as gods - "of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them." It doesn't forbid all images. For example in the Old Testament, God Himself commanded Moses to make images such as the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22) and the bronze serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21:8-9). However as you are well aware that was the old covenant. We honor and revere it but it has been superceded by the new covenant. As Hebrews 10:1 says, “the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities.”

If that was your standard for everything then protestantism doesn't hold up, either. The Incarnation changes everything however: Christ, the eternal Logos took on visible, material flesh (John 1:14). Since God revealed Himself in visible form, to depict Him is not idolatry but a confession of the truth of the Incarnation. As St. John of Damascus wrote: “When the invisible One became visible in the flesh, you may then depict the likeness of Him who was seen.” So that's for starters. Again, don't take my word for it. If you had a quality conversation with an Orthodox Priest they could explain all of these things for you.

Regarding Mary, Orthodox Christians distinguish between worship (latreia) and veneration/honor (douleia). Only God is worshiped. It's actually in my signature if you hadn't noticed before. Mary and the saints are honored because of their union with Christ. In Revelation 5:8 the prayers of the Saints rise before God like incense and in 1 Timothy 2:1-3 Paul urges believers to intercede for one another.

If the prayers of living Christians help us, how much more the prayers of those perfected in Christ? It is on this basis that Mary and the Saints are venerated, not worshipped. Mary is special and honored above the rest because she is Theotokos, the “God-bearer” (Luke 1:43: “the mother of my Lord”). She herself prophesied: “All generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48), however again she is not Christ and is never worshipped as God or "a god", or anything remotely like that.

An example of something one might do is to pray "Mary and the Saints, I'm having problem XYZ and I could really use some help. Please have mercy and intercede before the Father for me and ask Him to help me with this issue." And they would typically also be praying directly to God for help as well, because this is not a substitute for that. As a former protestant I can certainly understand why that might initially seem weird or even wrong, but it's no different than asking your pastor or a friend at church to pray for you, with the obvious exception that those people aren't in Heaven with direct access to God.

The bottom line is praying to Mary and the Saints - not worshipping them as Gods - is not replacing Christ but only asking our elder brothers and sisters in the faith to intercede for us before Him. Just as we ask friends to pray for us on earth, we ask the glorified in heaven to pray for us. This is basic Orthodoxy 101 stuff and the fact that you don't even understand what we actually believe explains to me why you say the things you do. Please at least take the time to properly understand something before attacking and criticizing it.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

One other thing - your comment about "there is one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus." which I believe is from 1 Timothy 2:5.

We believe that also. Christ is the only Mediator in the sense of being the sole Redeemer, the only One who reconciles humanity to the Father by His Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection. No saint, no angel, not even the Theotokos, can replace His unique mediating role, but this does not mean there can be no secondary intercessors within Christ.

• Paul urges Christians to make “supplications, prayers, intercessions” for all people (1 Tim. 2:1-2). If Christ alone mediates then why would Paul urge us to intercede for each other?
• Revelation 5:8 describes the saints in heaven offering the prayers of the faithful before God, clearly participating in intercession.
• Mary and the saints do not compete with Christ’s mediation, but instead they intercede through Him because they are united to Him as members of His Body. They simply ask him and He does whatever will be done, or not.

If you have a problem with this then you are essentially arguing against prayer because if Christ alone decides everything what is even the point? Why would He even listen to us? However we know He does.

The point is, 1 Timothy 2:5 is fulfilled in the Church, where all prayer and intercession flows from and back to Christ, the one Mediator.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Perhaps if you instead tried thinking about and focusing on Christ in a humble way, and praying to Him for discernment, you might have a different experience? Just an idea. If you go in there with a negative attitude and thinking it's all wrong and not being open you probably aren't going to get much out of it.

Only in the Orthodox mind are thinking about Christ and thinking about His Commandments two separate things.

As St. John of Damascus wrote: “When the invisible One became visible in the flesh, you may then depict the likeness of Him who was seen.” So that's for starters. Again, don't take my word for it. If you had a quality conversation with an Orthodox Priest they could explain all of these things for you.

I will go with the Apostles, Prophets, and early Church fathers who rejected images. People should be aware that it was an empress who blinded her own son in a power struggle over the throne who legalized images. Making images of God is idolatry, always has been.

Since God revealed Himself in visible form, to depict Him is not idolatry but a confession of the truth of the Incarnation.

This is a "said-no-verse-ever."

Regarding Mary, Orthodox Christians distinguish between worship (latreia) and veneration/honor (douleia).

This is another tick of John Damascene. It's not a biblical distinction, but one being read anachronistically over six centuries back into the Apostles.

The point is, 1 Timothy 2:5 is fulfilled in the Church, where all prayer and intercession flows from and back to Christ, the one Mediator.

The error of blurring Christ's unique Mediatorial role results in this error that you just made: the Church becomes the Savior figure and Christ is reduced to a ceremonial savior. "One Mediator" does not mean "many mediators", just as "One God" does not mean "many gods."

None of these doctrines have anything to do with the Apostles.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Only in the Orthodox mind are thinking about Christ and thinking about His Commandments two separate things.

This is false, and you know it is false, which makes your statement malicious and slanderous. Watch it.

I will go with the Apostles, Prophets, and early Church fathers who rejected images. People should be aware that it was an empress who blinded her own son in a power struggle over the throne who legalized images. Making images of God is idolatry, always has been.

Please provide a citation to back this up.

This is a "said-no-verse-ever."

This is another tick of John Damascene. It's not a biblical distinction, but one being read anachronistically over six centuries back into the Apostles.

This is an ad hominem attack against St. John without any citation or basis. You are dangerously close to getting in serious trouble if you continue with your dis-respectful attitude. Also, "everything I don't agree with is anachronistic" is not an argument. Try again.

The error of blurring Christ's unique Mediatorial role results in this error that you just made: the Church becomes the Savior figure and Christ is reduced to a ceremonial savior. "One Mediator" does not mean "many mediators", just as "One God" does not mean "many gods."

None of these doctrines have anything to do with the Apostles.

There is no blurring happening. I'm sorry if you are unable to understand the distinction after having it patiently and clearly explained to you in good faith. What you said is not what I said. Please provide a citation that "none of these doctrines have anything to do with the Apostles", which you know for a fact is not correct.

If you want to advocate for your faith you are welcome to do so, but if you continue to obfuscate and outright lie about the Orthodox Church, the Apostles, and the Saints, then we are going to have some serious problems. It's your choice and you have been warned so don't get mad at me if you continue down that road. I pray you won't allow your pride, ego, and wrath to overtake reason and love.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Iakobos]

What I find difficult about Godfatherparttwo's position is that at the end of the day his interpretation is driven by presuppositions external to Scripture and subsequently the interpretative lens varies depending on the verse in order to support the position he holds from protestant doctrines.

An isolated verse that supports his position at 100% literal face value is considered irrefutable and ironclad, but a verse that contradicts at 100% face value is explained away with a holistic interpretation. For example, his quoted verse from 2 Timothy:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

is considered irrefutable, ironclad evidence that the Holy Spirit working through Apostles for decades never delivered a single idea, concept or practice that wasn't written in Scripture and as a defense of Sola Scriptura. Yet we can look at at a verse like good old 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Or 2 Corinthians 3:5-6:

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

And these are ironclad proofs that his position is incorrect in the same way. But in his explanation a different interpretive lens will be used in order to make it support his position.

The reality is this Calvinist style approach misses the forest for the trees.

Another great example is claiming that it is impossible for men to exercise their will toward God by choosing to follow Christ commandments. You can take an isolated verse and weave a whole worldview out of it that purports that it is impossible for any man to ever exercise his will for good, only for evil. Yet Christ spent his ministry teaching people what? How to exercise their will toward God. If that task is impossible, then Christ's mission is nonsensical and absurd, therefore God is nonsensical and absurd, which is self-evidently untrue to any Christian, therefore the position is self-defeating.

 

[Iakobos]

The error of blurring Christ's unique Mediatorial role results in this error that you just made: the Church becomes the Savior figure and Christ is reduced to a ceremonial savior.

BTW to anyone who has participated in the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church, this is a joke of a statement. An absolute joke. Ignorance or malice afoot and charitably I'll assume the former given that mr. godfather has been quite patient with my previous snark.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This is false, and you know it is false, which makes your statement malicious and slanderous. Watch it.

I told you "I was thinking about the Second Commandment." Then you replied, "Maybe you should be thinking about Christ instead." There is no dichotomy between the two.

Please provide a citation to back this up.

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

Acts 17:29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to suppose that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the craft and thought of man. 30Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent

Early church fathers on images:

Early Church Fathers' View of Icons | Anabaptist Faith

This post addresses the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic practice of venerating icons. It examines the textual evidence from the first centuries of Christianity to see whether or not the veneration of images was considered a legitimate practice. The purpose of this post is not polemics but to...

anabaptistfaith.org

The empress who blinded her son and reversed the ban on images:

Irene of Athens – The First Sole Byzantine Empress ~ A guest post by Powee Celdran

Concept art of Empress Irene of Athens (r. 797-802) by Powee Celdran The Freelance History Writer is pleased to welcome back Powee Celdran with an article about an early Byzantine Empress. Empress …

thefreelancehistorywriter.com

the interpretative lens varies depending on the verse in order to support the position he holds from protestant doctrines.

Not even close to true.

Or 2 Corinthians 3:5-6:

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

I don't know how you're interpreting this, but Paul isn't attacking Scripture. Whenever Paul writes about "the letter", he is referring to the Old Covenant. "The Spirit" refers to the New Covenant.

 

[Northumber]

I'm not sure how to get this discussion into the underlying assumptions being made but it would be helpful.

@GodfatherPartTwo are you saying all images and representations are against 2nd commandment?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

@GodfatherPartTwo are you saying all images and representations are against 2nd commandment?

No. It was never understood as a flat rule against artwork.

 

[Northumber]

No. It was never understood as a flat rule against artwork.

Ok. So where do you see the line between when something is artwork and something is an idol?

 

[Blade Runner]

What I find difficult about Godfatherparttwo's position is that at the end of the day his interpretation is driven by presuppositions external to Scripture and subsequently the interpretative lens varies depending on the verse in order to support the position he holds from protestant doctrines.

We've had this discussion several times before. He's not honest about, or frankly does not understand, hermeneutics.

Yet Christ spent his ministry teaching people what? How to exercise their will toward God. If that task is impossible, then Christ's mission is nonsensical and absurd, therefore God is nonsensical and absurd, which is self-evidently untrue to any Christian, therefore the position is self-defeating.

This is the whole point of synergy, which he also likes to deny, but it's flatly obvious to anyone who does anything in life. You have to train yourself to do good works, and thus transform your life, which is the message of the Christian life: healing and transforming human being into what they were called to be.

Also, too frequently people of protestant backgrounds will go to far with the "Christ in me" thing, as if it is all God. It's quite clearly not, since by definition and in our lived experience, we can say, "No." If you continue to seek God, and this will happen into eternity, you will be what God made you to be. There's nothing controversial or hard to understand about any of this, but most people who are simple want simple answers to and answer the difficult questions of life. That's why they are obsessed with assurance of salvation. That is typically a problem because a) humans are often deluded, and b) our trust in God is far more important.

 

[Servant of Christ]

I told you "I was thinking about the Second Commandment." Then you replied, "Maybe you should be thinking about Christ instead." There is no dichotomy between the two.

Okay, maybe I wasn't clear. There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking about the commandments in a general sense. In fact, that's great. More people should do that more often, especially me. However you and I both know you were thinking or feeling some kind of disapproving and negative thoughts when standing in that Church, looking up and trying to figure it out with your logical mind, according to your understanding of scriptures and such. You said as much.

My point was to suggest another approach - to try to empty your mind of logical thoughts and instead focus entirely on Christ and pray to Him. Maybe go with something like "Jesus Christ, son of God, please have mercy on me a sinner. Lord, I worry these images are wrong because they seem to be in conflict with the scriptures as I understand them, but I ask you to show me if that is truly the case. Please hear my prayer and grant me discernment and help me to understand what is the truth."

I mean, that's up to you if you're willing to do that or not. However my point was that if you go to an Orthodox Church and just stand there and feel grumpy or irritated or offended while you think about how everything is wrong and don't open yourself up to Christ or the Holy Spirit or make an attempt to understand what you are seeing then you aren't going to get very far with it and you will likely leave with whatever pre-conceived notions you came with in the first place. And my other point which I've said repeatedly was to please speak to a priest and express your concerns or doubts because he will be 100x better at explaining this kind of stuff than I ever will be.

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

Acts 17:29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to suppose that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the craft and thought of man. 30Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent

Early church fathers on images:

Early Church Fathers' View of Icons | Anabaptist Faith

This post addresses the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic practice of venerating icons. It examines the textual evidence from the first centuries of Christianity to see whether or not the veneration of images was considered a legitimate practice. The purpose of this post is not polemics but to...

anabaptistfaith.org

The empress who blinded her son and reversed the ban on images:

Irene of Athens – The First Sole Byzantine Empress ~ A guest post by Powee Celdran

Concept art of Empress Irene of Athens (r. 797-802) by Powee Celdran The Freelance History Writer is pleased to welcome back Powee Celdran with an article about an early Byzantine Empress. Empress …

thefreelancehistorywriter.com

Not even close to true.

I don't know how you're interpreting this, but Paul isn't attacking Scripture. Whenever Paul writes about "the letter", he is referring to the Old Covenant. "The Spirit" refers to the New Covenant.

I will need to take some time to review your links and think about my reply. Thank you for the information.

For now, I will leave you with this:

In Orthodox anthropology, the human person is not just a rational mind but a union of body, soul, and spirit.

• The rational mind (aka the 'nous', in its fallen state) tends to analyze, calculate, and reason discursively. This is good and necessary, but it cannot by itself grasp divine mysteries.
• The heart (aka 'kardia') in patristic language is the deep center of the person; not just emotions, but the spiritual core where intellect and will unite with God. When purified, the nous is restored to the heart, and a person knows God not only through reasoning but by direct participation in Him.
• The Spirit illumines the heart, allowing true knowledge of God that surpasses rational deduction. As St. Paul says, “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Orthodox catechism stresses: not everything can be grasped by logic alone. The mysteries of God - like the Trinity, the Eucharist, or the Incarnation - are received through faith, prayer, and the illumination of the heart by the Holy Spirit.

St. Gregory Palamas taught: "reason discerns created things, but the purified heart, illumined by grace, perceives God Himself."

Take care & God bless my brother.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You have to train yourself to do good works, and thus transform your life, which is the message of the Christian life: healing and transforming human being into what they were called to be.

This is a reductionistic view of the Gospel. The Gospel is not self-help. The Gospel is Christ Jesus came to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

 

[Blade Runner]

This is a reductionistic view of the Gospel. The Gospel is not self-help. The Gospel is Christ Jesus came to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

No it is not. Saying yes to God can hardly be qualified as such. That's our point. That's why saying yes is not just the words, the mental assent, but the loving with all your heart, soul, strength (clout) and mind. That is action, just like taking up your cross entails ACTION.

 

[Blade Runner]

St. Gregory Palamas taught: "reason discerns created things, but the purified heart, illumined by grace, perceives God Himself."

Great one.

Thanks.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

Acts 17:29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to suppose that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the craft and thought of man. 30Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent

Early church fathers on images:

Early Church Fathers' View of Icons | Anabaptist Faith

This post addresses the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic practice of venerating icons. It examines the textual evidence from the first centuries of Christianity to see whether or not the veneration of images was considered a legitimate practice. The purpose of this post is not polemics but to...

anabaptistfaith.org

The empress who blinded her son and reversed the ban on images:

Irene of Athens – The First Sole Byzantine Empress ~ A guest post by Powee Celdran

Concept art of Empress Irene of Athens (r. 797-802) by Powee Celdran The Freelance History Writer is pleased to welcome back Powee Celdran with an article about an early Byzantine Empress. Empress …

thefreelancehistorywriter.com

From your anabaptist link, it says:

"...before 313, and probably for some time following, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice.

As I stated in my overview of this subject, I am not arguing that pre-Constantinian Christians didn’t have any kind of image, or that they were iconoclasts. All that I’m arguing is that, before 313, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice."

However:

The claim that “veneration wasn’t legitimate before 313” creates a false timeline. Sacred images were already present in Christian worship spaces centuries earlier, and there’s no evidence the Church ever condemned their veneration. What happened after Constantine wasn’t the "invention" of icon-veneration, but simply an organic process whereby it openly flourished once Christians no longer had to hide underground.

A false distinction between “having” and “venerating”:

• The evidence from the catacombs, Dura-Europos, and other early sites shows not just art but sacred art, placed in spaces of worship. For example, frescoes of Christ the Good Shepherd or Jonah weren’t neutral decorations; they were expressions of faith, reminders of salvation, and aids to prayer.

Silence does not equal "illegitimacy":

• While the early Holy / Church Fathers didn’t yet produce lengthy treatises on icon veneration, the absence of explicit documentation is not proof of prohibition. Most early Christian practice (including the exact form of liturgy, baptismal rites, etc.) also wasn’t systematized until later councils. That doesn’t mean it was “illegitimate” before 313.

Continuity after 313:

• If veneration of images were “illegitimate” before Constantine, we’d expect fierce debates when icons began to appear publicly after legalization. Instead, they appeared and flourished naturally and organically, demonstrating continuity with pre-Constantinian practice. The real controversy didn’t emerge until much later in the 8th-9th centuries with Iconoclasm, which the Church finally condemned as heresy and upheld icons and their veneration.

Some examples of early Christian sacred art (Dura-Europos, Catacombs, etc.)

• Dura-Europos house church (c. 233 AD):
  The baptistery walls are decorated with Christian frescoes: Christ walking on the water, the healing of the paralytic, the Good Shepherd, and scenes of resurrection. These show that Christians used visual, narrative, and sacred imagery before Constantine - not merely secular or decorative art, but biblical scenes in worship spaces. Also, the plan of the building shows a dedicated baptistry and an assembly room, with images in the worship environment.
  
  
• Catacomb art in Rome:
  While not always as explicitly “venerative”, the Christian catacombs (2nd-3rd centuries) include plentiful symbolic and narrative imagery (Good Shepherd, Jonah, Daniel, etc.) in burial chapels intended for prayer and remembrance of salvation. Many archaeology and Christian art histories regarding standard works on catacomb art confirm and discuss this.
  
  
  Link 1: https://resources.saylor.org/wwwres.../2011/03/ARTH401-1.1.3-Dura-Europos-FINAL.pdf
  
  Link 2: https://media.artgallery.yale.edu/duraeuropos/dura.html
  
  Link 3: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Dura-Europos

​

In Christ,

SoC

 

[NSOE]

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

The most important part of this commandment is missing from this quote. The second sentence which by itself is meaningless, so there is an implied 'and' conjunction before it; it cannot be an 'or' as that phrase by itself is empty.
You're free to make images and likenesses of things as long as you don't give them the praise that's owed to God. Both conditions must be satisfied for this law to be binding.


(1) You shall not make for yourself a carved image—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; (2) you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

Exodus 20:4

The first sentence talks about the creatures of different environments:

'anything that is in heaven above' means the sky, not the place where God, heavenly spirits, and saints dwell, since ground and water are mentioned afterwards- all the spheres of our earthly habitat, but also because cherubim statues were part of the Ark of the Covenant, and finally you can't make a 'likeness' of something you're not familiar with, and of whose appearance you have no idea;

'in the earth beneath' means below ground,

and 'or that is in the water under the earth' means underwater.

If I were to nitpick, there is no explicit prohibition of making images of anything that grows on, or roams the earth, only the things above, under, or in the water are listed. God ordered Moses to make a bronze saraph serpent for the people to look at- not to worship it- and be healed by their faithful obedience.

But even this natural belonging classification is not the issue, worship is the heart of the matter- we can have the likenesses of all the beautiful things God made if we want, no matter where they're found.

To repeat the standard answer, neither Catholics nor the Orthodox worship images, we just have them, they're revered like relics for what they represent.

I thought about it as a kid as we would get a lot of this criticism from Jehovah's Witnesses in Poland- my aunt's neighbors were that, she told us about one nasty comment she'd gotten about the image of Our Lady. I thought she should have slapped that woman across the face, and never talk to her again. My impression was that like Satan they in fact hate Mary herself, not her likeness, if they're thoroughly convinced of their heresies, they're not Christians after all.

That Exodus commandment only mentions this world, not Heaven and its inhabitants. Moses has seen the Burning Bush from which God spoke to him, I don't know if Jews had it on images in their Synagogues, or in the Temple.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

If I were to nitpick, there is no explicit prohibition of making images of anything that grows on, or roams the earth, only the things above, under, or in the water are listed. God ordered Moses to make a bronze saraph serpent for the people to look at- not to worship it- and be healed by their faithful obedience.

When it says the heavens above, above means above the earth. On the earth beneath, beneath refers to under the heavens. Remember that right before God gave the commandments, the Israelites crafted an image of Jehovah in the golden calf (a land animal), and this was deemed idolatry. It was also considered idolatry when the wayward Israelites later crafted not one but two golden calves.

The only times that images are permitted are when God Himself commanded them, and He did so in the instances of the Temple, the Ark, and Nehushtan (as you've pointed out). I do not think I need to point out to you that all three of these are images or contain images that signify Christ when they were used in their proper ordination. When they were taken out of their proper usage, and all three of them were at one time or another, they no longer signified Christ.

The problem with image worship in general is that it misses the forest for the trees. Man is the image of God. For man to worship an image is to invert God's created order, hence the charge of idolatry. This is why whenever the Prophets and Apostles referred to the images, they pointed out that the images are nothing but idle materials, such as rock, wood, precious metals, etc. Being in the New Covenant, the substance has come and the shadows, the signs have passed. There is truly no need for these images now that Christ has come and is interceding for His covenant people in the true heavenly Temple. As Colossians says, Christ is the true icon. So we can worship the true Icon in spirit and in truth. You don't need an icon (earthly materials) to worship the true Icon (Christ Himself).

When the Muslims conquered Constantinople, despite praying to the icons for victory, the Byzantines grabbed the icons out of their churches and fled West. It was the icons that needed the people's protection, not the other way around.

 

[Iakobos]

When it says the heavens above, above means above the earth. On the earth beneath, beneath refers to under the heavens. Remember that right before God gave the commandments, the Israelites crafted an image of Jehovah in the golden calf (a land animal), and this was deemed idolatry. It was also considered idolatry when the wayward Israelites later crafted not one but two golden calves.

The only times that images are permitted are when God Himself commanded them, and He did so in the instances of the Temple, the Ark, and Nehushtan (as you've pointed out). I do not think I need to point out to you that all three of these are images or contain images that signify Christ when they were used in their proper ordination. When they were taken out of their proper usage, and all three of them were at one time or another, they no longer signified Christ.

The problem with image worship in general is that it misses the forest for the trees. Man is the image of God. For man to worship an image is to invert God's created order, hence the charge of idolatry. This is why whenever the Prophets and Apostles referred to the images, they pointed out that the images are nothing but idle materials, such as rock, wood, precious metals, etc. Being in the New Covenant, the substance has come and the shadows, the signs have passed. There is truly no need for these images now that Christ has come and is interceding for His covenant people in the true heavenly Temple. As Colossians says, Christ is the true icon. So we can worship the true Icon in spirit and in truth. You don't need an icon (earthly materials) to worship the true Icon (Christ Himself).

When the Muslims conquered Constantinople, despite praying to the icons for victory, the Byzantines grabbed the icons out of their churches and fled West. It was the icons that needed the people's protection, not the other way around.