Hellenic religion

[Vangelovski]

God, the father is never depicted on holy icons ( at least not by our Orthodox church ). Jesus is depicted because he appeared to us as the God-man on earth. The Most-holy Trinity is depicted in the form of three angels sitting at a table. This is because the Lord once appeared to Abraham in the form of three angels. God the Holy Spirit is represented in the form of a dove that can be found on the icon of the Baptism of the Saviour in the Jordan by John the Baptist. Also in the form of tongues of fire as He descended on the fiftieth day after the ressurection.

Brandy,

How do you reconcile the practice with God's second commandment?

[Risto the Great]

No. It means do not make an image for worship fullstop. It means do not make an image of anything from anywhere including God in Heaven.

I don't get that from that specific section. But are you saying Orthodoxy has failed in this regard? I do not think anyone worships the image but in fact what it represents.

If Jesus is God and he was on Earth (not above, beneath or under water) then maybe it gets through on a technicality. We would not be able to comprehend what Jesus looks like in heaven, so surely the Orthodox flock might escape the wrath of God on this one??

I don't mean to trivialise this matter. It comes up in discussions with new age Christians from time to time.

[Vangelovski]

RtG,

The commandment covers ALL of creation. It is Hebrew phraseology and you need to understand it within that cultural context. It includes everything – Heaven (as in the heaven’s above or Heaven above the earth), the earth (as in the earth beneath Heaven) and the sea (under the earth).

The fascinating thing about the history of the Jewish people is that they disobeyed this commandment repeatedly. Again and again, they made idols to represent God and worshipped them, beginning with the creation of the golden calf at the very moment God was writing the Ten Commandments on tablets for Moses. Idol worship not only drew the Israelites away from the true and living God, it led to all manner of sins including temple prostitution and orgies, and even the sacrificing of children to these false gods.

The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit lives within US and that we have DIRECT contact with God the Father through prayer. So if we are not praying to the icon itself, what purpose does it really have?

The funny thing is, most of the icons of Jesus portray Him in a softened, quasi-romantic style as a handsome young man while, when in fact, He “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). If it were important for us to know what He really did look like, Matthew, Peter and John, who spent three years with Him, would certainly be able to give us an accurate description. Yet, these New Testament writers offer no details about His physical attributes. Doesn’t this suggest that, inspired by the Holy Spirit, they did so in order to carefully avoid encouraging us to make any image of Him?

Admittedly, we have some icons at home and I keep a Jesus icon on my desk at work. However, these aren’t used in worship. At work, I keep it on my desk in order to inspire curiosity from others and give me a chance to preach

[Vangelovski]

P.S. Although the commandments seem pretty straight forward and some people think they can identify "loop-holes", as you slowly read through the Bible, you begin to understand their true meaning and how deeply sinful people are.

[Philosopher]

If I may...

The correct reading of Exodus 20 is that, Van has already written, is not below the earth, for this would be silly. It means in the earth as in relation to below the heaven. But the general phrase means any image in the universe.

The Bible is not opposed to images or statues. Quite the contrary, they are everywhere present at God's behest: Cherubim, Seraphim, the brazen serpent Moses erected (a type of Christ), the design of the temple with animal figures, etc.

There is no prohibition against making such things; the probation is against "You shall not bow down and worship them," because they are senseless, inanimate objects that can neither do good nor evil.

But they can mislead us to false gods...and limit God to an image.

Saying all that, Mr Brandy is making the argument espoused by John of Damascus, the great saint of the eastern church, who taught that images are not to be worshiped but venerated. His distinction was that the Old testament must be looked at and interpreted in light of the new; when God said you will not make an image of me, because you have never seen me, this can only apply to the old testament.

The incarnation of Christ changed this. John of Damascus suggested that although no description exists of Christ in the gospels, there is an oral tradition in the church as to his likeness.

The church honors the friends of Christ by venerating their icons; and venerate things associated with his disciples and saints out of respect.

Saying all that, this is one of the many classic arguments of protestants with orthodox and catholic believers.

[Vangelovski]

Philosopher,

God did not say we cannot make an image of Him because we cannot see him - he said we cannot make an image of him fullstop.

John of Damascus' reasoning is not Biblical. He may have felt that because Jesus came to earth, it was now ok to depict images of God, but God's commandments are unchanging and eternal.

[Philosopher]

Actually, God did say that. In Deuteronomy 4.15 it states "and ye have been very watchful of your souls, for ye have not seen any similitude in the day Jehovah's speaking unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest ye do corruptly, and have made to you a graven image, a similitude of any figure, a form of a male or female--a form of any beast which is on the earth..."

Also, God's laws are not necessarily eternal. The Hebrew word often translated "as eternal" really means "an age." This is why all of the Jewish ceremonial law was repealed by God through the apostles in the New Testament "Which are a shadow of the coming things, but the body is of Christ."

John's argument is not unbiblical. He interpreted the Second Commandment in light of New Testament times; much like the Church has interpreted the Fourth Commandment in light of the New testament.

Tell me--do you have observe Saturday as the Sabbath? Do you use heat to cook or warm up your food? Do you have restriction on all activity as the Jews did in the Old Testament? Do you believe in the death penalty for Sabbath breakers? If all is eternal and unchanging, we should all put to death Sabbath breakers.

I get where you are coming from--I use to think images and icons were an abomination and a graven image of sorts not to be made or venerated.

I'm not so sure anymore. But I'm working on that.

[Vangelovski]

If anything, Deuteronomy 4:15 repeats God's commandment NOT to make any idols. Here, God purposely avoided appearing in any image, to shew that he abhors all worship of images, or of himself by images of any kind whatsoever, because he is the invisible God, and cannot be represented by any visible image.

This passage does NOT state that God told man not to make an image of Him because we cannot see him (and once we do we can make images), rather, he's saying He did not appear to them in any image so that they do not create an image of him. Clearly His intent was to discourage idols.

[makedonin]

Makedonin,

By nothing, they actually mean literally nothing. However, if there was something, how did it get there.

As I see, you love the word "nothing" cause it gives you the right feeling about your belief. But you lack fundamental knowledge about the thing.

Still, as I already said, the theory says that it is possible that at the beginning the whole thing was similar to a black hole, also called as singularity.

Here is something to it for you:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

So the "nothingness" they talk about is something scientist can't say anything about, case it is similar to a black hole, and since no one have been to a black hole, and they appear to suck matter, light and distort space, they appear black, thus appear as "nothing". What they are exactly, no one knows, and yet they know that matter, light and all we know goes in, and does not come out.

And as I already said, that does not exclude the possibility that God exists, for your relieve:

Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:

Does God Exist?

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Interestingly, the first one who came to the Big Bang theory was Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître a Roman Catholic priest, and the pope even proposed that his theory, which is scientific can be explanation for the Genesis Biblical story.

It is also called Hypothesis Of The Primeval Atom.

So, "nothing" is not nothing as you imagine it, but something completely different. The physical laws as we know them are non existent, which does not exclude that something we don't know existed.

I must say, the theory is only one of its kind, there are more others, this is just the popular, that all know about. It has own pros and cons.

That you feel that you can use it as evidence of the truthfulness of the bible is ironic, and shows how threatened the Christian believers are by the science. Belief is something man enjoys and suffers at the same time.

[Risto the Great]

I am positive science and God have a great deal to do with each other. I am also positive we will never understand either of these sufficiently to have perfect knowledge.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

Nothing is nothing, and the concept of nothing exists no matter how you try to redefine it. What you are trying to explain to us is something. A singularity is something. Even the theory you posted does not try to claim that a singularity is nothing. That is because nothing, means nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything - including singularities and everything else that you can possibly think of. If you can think of it, it means its something.

Rather than being threatened by science, Christianity welcomes it because the more science discovers about our world (as opposed to proposing unprovable theories), the more it reaffirms the Bible.

[makedonin]

I am positive science and God have a great deal to do with each other. I am also positive we will never understand either of these sufficiently to have perfect knowledge.

I tend to agree with you Risto. That said I will abandon this discussion seeing that it ends argueing about the word, and therefore losing the greater Picture.

I tell you this, we will Know soon enough, when we die, each for him self.


Vangelovski,

you know why I like Johns gospel, cause it says this:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made;

without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John&version=NIV

So, in the beginning nothing existed out of the word, which was God, cause through him later all things came to existence.

That passage is in line with the other scientific theories, with the only one difference, scientists talk about things that they can see and observe, about the time space continuum. Religious people go further more and imagine that there was something else. For the science that is an open question.

No scientist will go there, cause it is out of his spectrum, out of time space continuum. If God really exists, he must be out of time space continuum, other than that, he will be limited and obedient to the time space continuum, so he has to have beginning, life span and end.

So where is the difference in both of them, Religious man goes out with his Mind which adhere to time space continuum laws and tries to overcome them and say, there is God out of this limited time space continuum. Each experience, thought or what ever we can come to know is adherent to time space continuum, thus is in no position to speculate about something that is above those laws.

Science will never go that way, cause it is based on observation. God can't be observed, cause if he exists, he is out of space time continuum.

[julie]

makedonin, that was an extremely well articulated post, thank you, that is how I see that the space time continuim you speak of , that God is perhaps in another dimension that man will not be able to get to, and that believing in science does not make one a heathen or non Christian

[Mr Brandy]

Brandy, how did you come to this conclusion? This is not in accordance with the Bible.

Firstly, the Holy Spirit lives in the believer. He is not "imparted" into objects by holy water.

On the question of holy water, this practice was created to supplant the pagan celebration of the New Moon, according to canon 65 of the Council of Constantinople (691). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the earliest modern uses of holy water appear in the ninth century.

Matthew 3:11 speaks of "baptizing with water for repentance," with nothing in the context suggesting that the water itself is holy. Baptism is a symbolic ritual, identifying yourself with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. A closer parallel to the modern use of holy water would be God's laws in the Old Testament, which require cleaning ritually unclean things with water to purify them before you can touch them (see Leviticus 15, 16, and 17:15). See also a specific reference to ritually unclean people found at Numbers 19:17.



The Bible nowhere instructs believers to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Many Orthodox view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."

1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Many Orthodox argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. Is this true? Lets have a look. The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in Heaven praying for anyone on earth.

Further, the Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). The one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel was not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is plainly clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for you. One has a strong Biblical basis, the other has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

Finally, God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in Heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God's throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

Followers of Orthodoxy rely on guidance from Holy Scripture as well as Holy Tradition. This notion that the final word rests in bible is a view promoted by Protestants who sorely lack or reject ancient Christian tradition. All Divine revelation is preserved in the Holy Church, that includes what was not originally written down but handed down by word of mouth and the only later written down by Saints.

Baptism and Chrismation in the Orthodox church is not simply a symbolic ritual. It is a sacrament and a Mystery of the church.

On the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord or Theophany the blessing of water occurs. This sanctified water is considered holy by worshippers and is used in special ways to sanctify other objects. Again not sure what Catholics or Pagans do but this is what is done in Orthdoxy.

There is no obligation in Orthodoxy to pray to anyone but God - especially since all prayers are ultimately directed at Him. When you pray to the Mother of God or to a Saint this doesn't happen in secret. God presented us with these people to aid in our effort to know Him. He is as fully aware of our prayers to him regardless of who we may ask to intercede for us. Of course all of our prayers are answered in according to God's Will and not necessarily our own.

Regardless of the Protestant dogma that you may be following as a Christian, in order to fulfill our purpose on earth and to recieve eternal salvation it is necessary to know the true God and to rightly believe in Him. Secondly we are to love God and people and to do good works.

[Risto the Great]

Followers of Orthodoxy rely on guidance from Holy Scripture as well as Holy Tradition. This notion that the final word rests in bible is a view promoted by Protestants who sorely lack or reject ancient Christian tradition. All Divine revelation is preserved in the Holy Church, that includes what was not originally written down but handed down by word of mouth and the only later written down by Saints.

I am not familiar with the concept of holy tradition. Is this defined anywhere? It sounds like it could be open to a fair bit of abuse by a church to me.

Of course all of our prayers are answered in according to God's Will and not necessarily our own.

Then why pray?

MB, somewhere else on this forum you have mentioned the Orthodox concept of Hell. Can you expand on this please?