Why do you corrupt yourselves, making graven "ICONS"?>μὴ ἀνομήσητε καὶ ποιήσητε ὑμῖν ἑαυτοῖς γλυπτὸν ὁμοίωμα πᾶσαν ΕΙΚΟΝΑ ὁμοίωμα ἀρσενικοῦ ἢ θηλυκοῦDeuteronomy 4:16Why do you sin more and more, making "ICONS, IDOLS" of silver?>καὶ προσέθετο τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν ἔτι καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς χώνευμα ἐκ τοῦ ἀργυρίου αὐτῶν κατ᾽ ΕΙΚΟΝΑ ΕΙΔΩΛΩΝ ἔργα τεκτόνων συντετελεσμένα αὐτοῖς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν θύσατε ἀνθρώπους μόσχοι γὰρ ἐκλελοίπασινHosea 13:2And, most importantly, why do you labor under the lie that "Icon" is not a direct synonym with "Idol" in Greek? In English I hear some of you claim that there is a linguistic distinction. Maybe that makes sense if you're monolingual. This is why John Damascene blatantly says "yes, Iconodulia is Idolatry, but the command against making images is abrogated in Christ." A native Greek speaker accustomed to the LXX would find it hard to come to any other conclusion.Unfortunately, Paul is bold. Such a thing is NOT abrogated in Christ Jesus. Why do you change the truth of God into a lie?Why do you change the glory of God into an "ICON" made like corruptible man?>καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι ΕΙΚΟΝΟΣ φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶνRomans 1:23
>>18540134I think you could tell who made this post, either way...
Looks hard and incites awe, that's it.You go to aniconic Judaism-affirming Protestant churches in the US and it's some rented hall behind a McDonald's
>>18540146Ignoring the fact that not every aniconic church is zionist...>The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their houseImagine thinking "well I'm just not awed by this church. it's in someone's house"Very foolish. >Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none"Well I'm just now awed by this Peter fellow"etc.
>>18540150not* awed
>>18540134idol = anything you place over god, your own family, money, fame, all can become idols if you place them above god.icon = piece of wood that represents something which helps you direct yourself to that thing which you venerate in case of saints or worship in case of god.nobody is worshipping carved wooden statues of pagan gods from 2k years ago which was the problem that the jewish myth for the goyim (christianity) had a problem with.
>>18540134ICON refers specifically to graven images of God my homosexual Protestant Cathocuck friend. You can not have an “icon” of an angel or saint because that is not what the word means.Pictures: ICONS of angels on the arc of the covenant. I wish the Lord knew his own religion as well as Protestants do so he wouldn’t have signed off on this idolatry
>>18540281I got that mixed up. I meant you can’t have an idol of an angel or saint because otherwise arc of the covenant is considered as idolatry You can have orthodox iconography
>>18540332I don't see you making more Arks though. All I see you do is carry around statues and images of new things no one told you to make. Do you think the verses against "Icons" were referring to pagans making Arks and cherubs like the Law commanded? Who exactly told you to "corrupt yourself" in making these new graven "icons"?
>>18540367Yes or no - do you think cherubim on the seat of the Ark is considered idolatry?
>>18540368No, because no one bowed down to them nor worshiped them. >inb4 no one does that with cathodox iconsBut they do though?The reason the Levites bore the ark on their shoulders is because it contained the Law and Aaron's Rod inside it. The outer appearance was just "cunning work."Anyways, moot point. You aren't making new Arks and Cherubs.Nor are you addressing the Greek quotations in Scripture, in which Icon and Idol are synonyms.
nigger
>>18540375You think no one in Israel prayed like that to the arc of the covenant, a spiritual relic of God?
>>18540333You worship pictures.
>>18540667How many lovers.Jeremiah 3:1>“If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers— would you now return to me?” declares the Lord.
>>18540411not really, considering it was hidden from the entire public 99% of the time.
>>18540800The fact that God (supposedly if you believe Deuteronomy) ordered his followers to build a shrine with cherubim on it means he has no issue with men making physical depictions of angels or saints.
>>18540865He has a problem when you worship them. Another linguistic quirk: "worship" and "prostration" are the same word in Greek. So you ought not be confused at the commandment's meaning.
>>18540865>The fact that God once ordered his followers to kill a man means he has no issue with men killing whoever they want whenever they want for whatever reasons they want.Just because God once ordered a specific figure to be built does not mean everyone is allowed to create any idols they want whenever they want and worship them.
>>18540134The word EIKON in Greek means "image," not "idol." You are conflating two different Greek words. Eikon = image, representation. Eidolon = idol, false god. The Septuagint uses eikon in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man in our image (eikona)." Are you going to call God an idolater for making man as His eikon?God commanded the Israelites to make graven images for worship. Exodus 25:18: two cherubim of gold on the mercy seat, the most sacred object in the tabernacle. Numbers 21:8: a bronze serpent. 1 Kings 6:23: two olive wood cherubim in the Temple, each ten cubits tall. God commanded these. Were these idols? If your interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:16 were correct, God would be contradicting Himself.The prohibition is not against making images. It is against worshipping them as gods. That is why the Council of Nicaea II (787 AD) distinguished clearly: latria (worship) is due to God alone. Dulia (veneration/honor) is given to saints. Hyperdulia to Mary. You honor your parents. You do not worship them. You salute a flag. You do not worship it. Veneration is not idolatry.The Incarnation settles this permanently. In the Old Covenant, God was invisible, so images were forbidden. In the New Covenant, God became visible. "He is the image (eikon) of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). Christ Himself is an eikon. When you depict Christ, you depict the God who chose to be seen. John of Damascus made this exact argument in the 8th century: "I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake."The iconoclast controversy was settled 1,200 years ago. Your Protestant reading is the innovation, not the Catholic practice.
>>18542411I dont think you actually tried reading or understanding the quoted scriptures. You just went to a pre-recorded response.Romans 1 says that those who turn the glory of God into an "icon" are fools.>If your interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:16 were correctmaybe try reading Romans 1Unless you're so obstinate you believe Paul would condemn those who "turn God into an icon" while writing to people who turn God into an icon (what you suppose Christians did from the beginning).
>>18542479Romans 1:23 describes pagans who "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images (eikona) made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Read the actual passage. Paul is describing the Gentile descent into idolatry: they knew God, refused to honor Him, and replaced Him with images of created things. They turned AWAY from God toward false gods. This is the exact opposite of Catholic iconography, which directs the mind TOWARD God and His saints.The key word is "exchanged." They traded God for images. Catholics do not trade God for images. We use images as windows to the divine, exactly as the Israelites used the cherubim on the mercy seat and the bronze serpent in the wilderness. God commanded those images. Was He commanding idolatry? If Romans 1 condemns all images, then God contradicted Himself in Exodus 25 and Numbers 21.Paul says they exchanged God's glory for images of "mortal man." Here is the crucial theological point you are missing: the Incarnation happened. God became mortal man. Christ is "the image (eikon) of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). The pagans Paul describes fabricated images of creatures to replace God. The Church depicts the God who chose to become visible. You cannot accuse a Christian of "turning God into an icon" when God turned Himself into flesh. The whole basis of iconography is that the invisible God became visible, and depicting Him is not a reduction but a recognition of that fact.John of Damascus said it best in the 8th century: "In former times, God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake."Paul was writing against pagans who rejected God for idols. He was not writing against Christians who depict the incarnate Christ. Read Romans 1 in context, not as a proof text.
>>18540146classist snobbery isn't very christ-like
>>18542518>they knew God, refused to honor Him, and replaced Him with images of created thingspic related>exactly as the Israelites used the cherubim on the mercy seat and the bronze serpent in the wildernessIf the "veneration of the image passes to the prototype" then no, they did not use these images like you say. In fact, when the Israelites did give actual veneration to Moses' brass serpent, Hezekiah had it destroyed, ostensibly with the license of God. Because it is the worship, the BOWING DOWN TO images that God hates. Dulia vs. Latria only makes sense if you are not familiar with Greek btw. Dulia = service rendered as a bondman. Latria = service rendered as a freeman. There is really no quantitative difference in the service. But if you're not used to Greek you will probably be fooled. Again, this is why John Damascene argued outright that the veneration of icons WAS IDOLATRY! Because to native Greek speakers of the 8th century, it was obvious. His argument is that the command against idolatry was abrogated.>The pagans Paul describes fabricated images of creatures to replace God. The Church depicts the God who chose to become visible.Merely declaring that something "is Jesus" does not make it so.>Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.>And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:Will you repent of the ignorance that the Godhead is like unto artwork and human devices?
>>18542518This man is the example of why God commanded us to kill the idolaters, not to reason with them.
>>18542518>>18542542experts please respond.
