• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Long Can you Live?

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
That’s not how I’d interpret it. I’d say that none may see God as He truly is...<snip>....one may truly see God—but only when He veils His divine Essence, which no one can comprehend or gaze upon. When Jesus became man, He likewise veiled His Divinity for our sake, thus allowing people to look upon Him and live. Remember when the children of Jerusalem sang at Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem: “Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord; the Lord is God, and has revealed Himself to us!”

I don't know what translation you are using there Shiranui117 but that is not what it says in other translations.....here it is from the NKJV and the CJB just for comparison. Both footnotes indicate Psalm 118:26, which is the scripture the crowds were quoting.

"Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying:“Hosanna to the Son of David!
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’[a]
Hosanna in the highest!”


Footnotes:

  1. Matthew 21:9 Psalm 118:26


"The crowds ahead of him and behind shouted,“Please! Deliver us!”
to the Son of David;
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of Adonai
“You in the highest heaven! Please! Deliver us!”

Footnotes:

  1. Matthew 21:9 Greek Ôsanna (English “Hosanna”) transliterates Hebrew Hosha na, which means “Please! Save [us]!”
  2. Matthew 21:9 Psalm 118:25–26
  3. Matthew 21:9 Greek Ôsanna (English “Hosanna”) transliterates Hebrew Hosha na, which means “Please! Save [us]!” (Matt 21:9 CJB)
Psalm 118:26 says "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
We have blessed you from the house of the Lord.."
(NKJV)

Who is the LORD (Adonai CJB) mentioned here? The use of capitals indicates that it is Jehovah (Yahweh) So Jesus came in the name of his Father, "sent forth" as his representative, not as God in human form. (Matt 10:40, John 7:29)

"Blessed be he that cometh in the name of Jehovah: We have blessed you out of the house of Jehovah." (Psalm 118:26 ASV)

John 1:18 is backed up in other verses.....

(John 6:46) "Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father."

(1 John 4:12) "At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us."
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Shiranui117 said:
Then what did the Christians do for the first 400-some years before there was even a standard canon of Scripture?...<snip>.... It would take decades/centuries for even the Four Gospels to gain universal acceptance among all Christians—let alone the Epistles. The Eastern churches didn’t accept the Book of Revelation as Scripture until the 500’s or 600’s, and to this day, we never read from Revelation during church.

What did God's servants do before God wrote the scriptures that came through Moses? These were written only about 1500 years before Christ came.

When the time is right, Jehovah takes appropriate action. When his people needed written instruction, God provided understanding along with the words by means of his representatives. The letters written to the first congregations were accepted as coming from the holy spirit through the apostles.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
When the foretold apostasy began to manifest at the beginning of the second century, men infiltrated the congregations and undermined or weakened their faith in the inspiration of the inspired letters. From that time on, God's word was watered down and a weakened church saw many doctrines and celebrations introduced from Roman paganism and they have stayed until this day. Evidence of sun worship is plain for all to see. Did you never wonder where halos come from?

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...Afg2oHYBA&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=631&dpr=1

I don't know to to what extent the Orthodox church retains these things, but Roman Catholicism certainly does.

When the decision was reached by the older men in Jerusalem on the issue of Gentile circumcision, Acts 15:22-29 reports...

"Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Bar&#8242;na·bas, namely, Judas who was called Bar&#8242;sab·bas and Silas, leading men among the brothers; &#8239;and by their hand they wrote:....
we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to you together with our loved ones, Bar&#8242;na·bas and Paul, men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.&#8239;We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”


In Acts 16:4, 5 it goes on to say..."Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem.&#8239;Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day."
First century Christians had no problem accepting the writings of the apostles as a product of holy spirit, to be respected and obeyed.

In "the time of the end" Daniel prophesied that "abundant knowledge" would be made available to God's people. (Dan 12:4) He said that only those who accepted 'cleansing and refining' would be granted understanding. Those who wickedly cling to falsehood would understand nothing. (Dan 12:9, 10)
Christendom's interference with the holy writings, attempting to conceal their contents from the common man and using them to dominate over the flock would be permitted until the time for these matters to be made known.

Time is not an issue for the eternal God. By the time of Jesus earthly ministry, hundreds of years had elapsed and Judaism had fallen into a sad and sorry state spiritually speaking. The religious leaders should have led their flocks to their Messiah, but Jesus was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". How they became lost is obvious from the attitude of the Pharisees towards Jesus.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
This was most certainly the case during the start of Christianity, where no one was ever born into the Faith, but it was so new that it could only grow through converts for a while. And of course, the conversion of entire cities and synagogues is more inspirational and noteworthy than mentioning the baptism of children.
This comment on infant baptism mentions "entire cities and synagogues". Do you have some evidence to support the populations of entire cities or synagogues being baptized? There is no mention of this in scripture. There were large crowds certainly, but I do not recall entire cities.

There are good reasons that some people in those days put off their baptism until their late adulthood, or even more often on their deathbed—and there are solid reasons that parents in those days had their children baptized. If you’d like, I can explain them. The Biblical references to infant baptism are indeed vague, and you like many others choose to deny that they affirm infant baptism. The reasons I have in mind for adult vs. infant baptism are more practical in nature—and they are the reasons that were used by people in those days.
Yes, Constantine certainly put off baptism until he was dying. He never stopped worshipping Zeus right alongside Jesus Christ for the whole time he presided over the Roman church as Pontifex Maximus....a title that the Pope carries to this day.

Since no one can make a dedication to God for us, how is infant baptism more than a meaningless ritual anyway? How many people really carry out the vow they make on the day? (Eccl 5:4, 5) How does God feel about that do you think?

Baptism requires full immersion, because it is a symbolic death and resurrection from one's former course and a new beginning to do the will of God first in one's life. Jesus himself set the example....and he was a full grown man. I can find no reference to the baptism of infants in the Bible.

If one tried to fully baptize a young baby today, they would be had up for child abuse. :facepalm:

You dodged my question. What I asked was, do the Scriptures say that the entire Church would cease to exist on earth? Where do the Scriptures say that the vast majority or entirety of the Church would fall away after the death of the Apostles?
The very fact that Jesus said that "few" would be on the road to life indicates that the majority would not be found in an acceptable spiritual condition when Jesus returns. (Matt 7:13, 14, 21-23)
What spiritual condition were the nation of Israel in when Jesus came the first time?
Judaism was a type for Christendom. Segregated, disunited and spiritually "lost" in man-made tradition, which was put before the word of God.

As God's representative, Jesus came to correct them, but they did not want to listen.
They lost out on places in the kingdom as rulers and priests with him. (Rev 20:6)
Only a "few" Jews responded and many Gentiles were then offered the opportunity to make up the numbers of this finite group who would rule redeemed mankind from heaven. (Rev 14:1, 3)


The title of this thread is "How long can you live?" It isn't called "how long would you like to live?", because most people in good health could never pick a day when they would like to die. We are programmed to go on living indefinitely. Death is a foreign to us today as it was to Adam, thousands of years ago. He and his wife would never have died if they had not disobeyed their Creator. Partaking of the forbidden fruit was the only cause of death. Mortals were meant to go on living because the means to sustain their lives forever was right there in the garden with them. Only after they sinned was access to "the tree of life" denied them. "Trees of life" are not mentioned again until God's kingdom rules mankind. (Rev 22:1, 2)

Revelation 21:2-4 is a description of the way life will be when that is a reality...

"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a great voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” (RSVCE)

Just as God ruled his people from heaven in the days of Israel, with priests and kings in Jerusalem presiding over them, so his kingdom will rule mankind again, this time the arrangement will be permanent because, thanks to Christ's sacrifice, sins are forgiven and the earth is cleansed of all wickedness...."the former things have passed away." and we can have a fresh start. :) (Psalm 37:9, 10, 29)
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I don't know what translation you are using there Shiranui117 but that is not what it says in other translations.....here it is from the NKJV and the CJB just for comparison. Both footnotes indicate Psalm 118:26, which is the scripture the crowds were quoting.

"Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying:&#8220;Hosanna to the Son of David!
&#8216;Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!&#8217;[a]
Hosanna in the highest!&#8221;


Footnotes:

  1. Matthew 21:9 Psalm 118:26
I'm using the Septuagint of Psalm 117:26-27. The Greek verb &#949;&#960;&#949;&#966;&#945;&#957;&#949;&#957;, commonly translated as "give light," also means "to appear/reveal/show oneself." It's from this verb that we get the English term "epiphany", meaning, the revelation of God unto us. It's a holiday among Christians.

Who is the LORD (Adonai CJB) mentioned here? The use of capitals indicates that it is Jehovah (Yahweh) So Jesus came in the name of his Father, "sent forth" as his representative, not as God in human form. (Matt 10:40, John 7:29)
There were no capitalized and uncapitalized letters in the ancient Biblical manuscripts, even for almost half a millennium after the writing of the NT, as is the case with such texts as the Codex Sinaiticus. All the text was in majuscule form. What that essentially means is, EVERY SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN IN WHAT WE WOULD CALL "CAPITAL LETTERS," like how I just did. I've seen Bibles that don't capitalize any pronouns referring to God at all, because it saves ink to just use the lower case. So, we can't use "capitalized vs. uncapitalized" to determine such things as who's who, if such conventions weren't employed in the ancient manuscripts. The capitalization of some pronouns as opposed to others is purely an editorial decision.

John 1:18 is backed up in other verses.....

(John 6:46) "Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father."

(1 John 4:12) "At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us."
I've already addressed this, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again.

What did God's servants do before God wrote the scriptures that came through Moses? These were written only about 1500 years before Christ came.
Well, God hadn't made a covenant with Moses yet, so asking what the people did before God made the covenant with Israel through Moses and giving the Law to the people is kind of irrelevant. And actually, the Torah/Pentateuch wasn't written down until centuries after Sinai. The people transmitted the whole of the Pentateuch orally and through practice and time-honored tradition.

When the time is right, Jehovah takes appropriate action. When his people needed written instruction, God provided understanding along with the words by means of his representatives. The letters written to the first congregations were accepted as coming from the holy spirit through the apostles.
Yes, but these letters still weren't treated as Scripture on the same level as the Old Testament.

When the foretold apostasy began to manifest at the beginning of the second century, men infiltrated the congregations and undermined or weakened their faith in the inspiration of the inspired letters. From that time on, God's word was watered down and a weakened church saw many doctrines and celebrations introduced from Roman paganism and they have stayed until this day. Evidence of sun worship is plain for all to see. Did you never wonder where halos come from?

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...Afg2oHYBA&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=631&dpr=1

I don't know to to what extent the Orthodox church retains these things, but Roman Catholicism certainly does.
:facepalm: Those halos aren't symbols of sun worship. They're the symbol of God's divine Light shining through the Saints. They're the artistic depiction of the light of Christ shining within us, as Christ mentions in Matthew 5:14, and as Paul mentions in Philippians 2:15.

While we're at it, are there any other questions of Christian art and iconography you'd like to have clarified? I'm more than happy to explain to you the historical, Biblical and theological foundations of iconography, and many of the elements and motifs employed therein.

First century Christians had no problem accepting the writings of the apostles as a product of holy spirit, to be respected and obeyed.
Yes, but as I said, these writings weren't treated or viewed as Holy Scripture.

In "the time of the end" Daniel prophesied that "abundant knowledge" would be made available to God's people. (Dan 12:4) He said that only those who accepted 'cleansing and refining' would be granted understanding. Those who wickedly cling to falsehood would understand nothing. (Dan 12:9, 10)
Yes, this is true.

Christendom's interference with the holy writings, attempting to conceal their contents from the common man and using them to dominate over the flock would be permitted until the time for these matters to be made known.
I think you mean Roman Catholicism. All the early Fathers (Latin and Greek alike) campaigned strongly for their flocks to be educated in the Bible, even if they could only afford one book of it. It was only in the medieval age that the Romans got the strange idea that the Bible should only be in Latin, which of course only the educated priesthood could understand. In Orthodox Christianity, wherever the Gospel was spread, a Bible translation in the language of the people soon followed. Sts. Cyril and Methodius, for example, evangelized the Slavic peoples, and translated the Bible and the Liturgy from Greek into Slavic for them. They even invented an alphabet for the Slavs to use, since the Slavs had no writing system at the time! And the Slavs, in turn, translated the Bible into the native languages of the people they came into contact with in Siberia and the Far North.

So, while Roman Catholicism may have refused to make the Bible accessible to the people, the Orthodox Church has always made sure that the Bible was both accessible and understandable for everyone. No matter where the Gospel spread, whether it spread to the Arabs, Slavs, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Armenians, Georgians, Japanese, Siberian tribes, or anywhere else, you can bet that each and every one of these peoples got the Bible and the Liturgy in their own language.
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
This comment on infant baptism mentions "entire cities and synagogues". Do you have some evidence to support the populations of entire cities or synagogues being baptized? There is no mention of this in scripture. There were large crowds certainly, but I do not recall entire cities.
Ahh, my bad, I thought there was. But it gets better later on--in a few centuries, we have entire kingdoms and empires coming to Christ, like the Armenians, Ethiopians and Romans! :D

Yes, Constantine certainly put off baptism until he was dying. He never stopped worshipping Zeus right alongside Jesus Christ for the whole time he presided over the Roman church as Pontifex Maximus....a title that the Pope carries to this day.
What evidence do you have that Caesar continued to worship Zeus, or that he presided over the Roman church? Yes, Constantine called the Council of Nicaea--but it was the bishops who decided the outcome of the council, not Constantine. I certainly see no mention of Constantine wielding power over the Roman church, or any other church, for that matter.

Since no one can make a dedication to God for us, how is infant baptism more than a meaningless ritual anyway? How many people really carry out the vow they make on the day? (Eccl 5:4, 5) How does God feel about that do you think?
Infant baptism is far from meaningless. It brings children into the Kingdom of God here on earth, the bride of Christ, the ark of salvation, the Church. Baptism calls down the Holy Spirit upon the children, so that from the very start of their lives they may be well-pleasing to God, walking in all their days according to God's commandments and under the shelter of His wings. Henceforth, they are being brought up and trained in grace. Remember Proverbs 22:6--Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.

Baptism requires full immersion, because it is a symbolic death and resurrection from one's former course and a new beginning to do the will of God first in one's life. Jesus himself set the example....and he was a full grown man. I can find no reference to the baptism of infants in the Bible.

If one tried to fully baptize a young baby today, they would be had up for child abuse. :facepalm:
Not at all! In the Orthodox Church, everyone is baptized by triple immersion. And most everyone in the Orthodox Church is baptized as an infant, unless you're a convert. Babies are fully immersed three times, and there is almost never any problem--just make them quick immersions, and all is well. I have served at numerous infant baptisms, and not once has there been an issue when the baby was fully immersed. The three immersions are done in three seconds total. It's quick, harmless, and it's over before the baby even knows! :D

The very fact that Jesus said that "few" would be on the road to life indicates that the majority would not be found in an acceptable spiritual condition when Jesus returns. (Matt 7:13, 14, 21-23)
Not necessarily. The path to destruction is broad, meaning there are many ways by which we can enter by it. But the narrow road of salvation only has one path--that is, through Jesus Christ to the Father, in the Holy Spirit. We should certainly try to ensure that as many as possible find the straight and narrow path, don't you agree?

Judaism was a type for Christendom. Segregated, disunited and spiritually "lost" in man-made tradition, which was put before the word of God.
Hey now, let's keep the bashing of others' religions out of this. I could just as easily accuse the Jehovah's Witnesses of putting blind trust in the man-made traditions and interpretations of the Watchtower Society, and looking more to the WTS than to the Bible, but I'm not.

The title of this thread is "How long can you live?" It isn't called "how long would you like to live?", because most people in good health could never pick a day when they would like to die. We are programmed to go on living indefinitely. Death is a foreign to us today as it was to Adam, thousands of years ago. He and his wife would never have died if they had not disobeyed their Creator. Partaking of the forbidden fruit was the only cause of death. Mortals were meant to go on living because the means to sustain their lives forever was right there in the garden with them. Only after they sinned was access to "the tree of life" denied them. "Trees of life" are not mentioned again until God's kingdom rules mankind. (Rev 22:1, 2)
Amen! This is a key focal point in salvation history as understood by the Orthodox Church. I'm pleased to see that the Jehovah's Witnesses have picked up on it as well. :)

Revelation 21:2-4 is a description of the way life will be when that is a reality...

"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a great voice from the throne saying, &#8220;Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.&#8221; (RSVCE)

Just as God ruled his people from heaven in the days of Israel, with priests and kings in Jerusalem presiding over them, so his kingdom will rule mankind again, this time the arrangement will be permanent because, thanks to Christ's sacrifice, sins are forgiven and the earth is cleansed of all wickedness...."the former things have passed away." and we can have a fresh start. :) (Psalm 37:9, 10, 29)
Amen!
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
I'm using the Septuagint of Psalm 117:26-27. The Greek verb &#949;&#960;&#949;&#966;&#945;&#957;&#949;&#957;, commonly translated as "give light," also means "to appear/reveal/show oneself." It's from this verb that we get the English term "epiphany", meaning, the revelation of God unto us. It's a holiday among Christians.

"Blessed is he who comes in the name of Adonai. We bless you from the house of Adonai.
Adonai is God, and he gives us light. Join in the pilgrim festival with branches all the way to the horns of the altar."
(CJB)

I had to do some research on this as I am not familiar with Orthodox beliefs. Hopefully I will be by the finish of our discussion :)

e·piph·a·ny

[ih-pif-uh-nee]


noun, plural e·piph·a·nies. 1.( initial capital letter ) a Christian festival, observed on January 6, commemorating the manifestation of Christ to the gentiles in the persons of the Magi; Twelfth-day.

2. an appearance or manifestation, especially of a deity.

3. a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.

4. a literary work or section of a work presenting, usually symbolically, such a moment of revelation and insight."

Is the holiday you spoke about connected to the first definition here or is it about all of the above?
We will have to have a discussion about the magi if that is the case.... :p

I know we have a "blessing of the fleet" near where I live. Is that also an exclusive Orthodox tradition or just for the Greek church?

Do all Orthodox churches share the same beliefs? Russian, Greek, Eastern etc? Or are there differences between them?

There were no capitalized and uncapitalized letters in the ancient Biblical manuscripts, even for almost half a millennium after the writing of the NT, as is the case with such texts as the Codex Sinaiticus. All the text was in majuscule form. What that essentially means is, EVERY SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN IN WHAT WE WOULD CALL "CAPITAL LETTERS," like how I just did...<snip>....So, we can't use "capitalized vs. uncapitalized" to determine such things as who's who, if such conventions weren't employed in the ancient manuscripts. The capitalization of some pronouns as opposed to others is purely an editorial decision.
I think you missed the point. Other translations use capitalization when the scripture quoted has the tetragrammaton in the original Hebrew text. It is understanding where "Yahweh" was written in the Hebrew. This then takes away the ambiguity of whether it is the Lord Jesus or the Sovereign Lord Jehovah being spoken about. Take as an example Psalm 110:1....

"This is the declaration of the Lord to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
until I make Your enemies Your footstool.” (Holman)

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (KJV)

"Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (ASV)

"
Adonai says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.”
(Complete Jewish Bible)

The use of capitals indicates where the tetragrammaton was substituted with a title, as you can see in the CJB.
In other Bibles, it makes the scripture a little obscure when the capitalization was not pointed out.
The ASV used the divine name, so it is clear who is talking to whom.

Another example is Psalm 83:18.

"Let them know that you alone, whose name is Adonai, are the Most High over all the earth." (CJB) Tetragrammaton substituted with the title

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth."
(KJV)

Now look at how the NKJV renders that verse.....
"That they may know that You, whose name alone is the Lord, Are the Most High over all the earth." (NKJV)

Only one rendering here is correct....the KJV.
A title is NOT a name.

Yet, here is a complete contradiction in the KJV at Ex 3:15

"Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’ "
(KJV)

Here it is in the ASV....

"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

This is a passage where the tetragrammaton SHOULD have been used in the KJV. "Yahweh" (Jehovah) is the name that God said should be his memorial name to ALL generations, yet it is rendered meaningless by the substitution.

There is now a "Divine Name King James Bible" where the divine name is replaced in all the passages where it was previously substituted. That is quite an admission on the part of the translators. :eek:

How does your church feel about the divine name and its usage? After all Jesus said "Hallowed be thy name" not "hallowed be thy title".

To be continued......
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
:facepalm: Those halos aren't symbols of sun worship. They're the symbol of God's divine Light shining through the Saints. They're the artistic depiction of the light of Christ shining within us, as Christ mentions in Matthew 5:14, and as Paul mentions in Philippians 2:15.

Hmmm....Click on the link below.....a brief look at these pics may take away any doubt that the halo is not exactly Christian. :eek: Borrowed perhaps?

Picture Gallery

"Shining as illuminators in the world" doesn't mean having sunbeams coming out of your head surely? :eek:

I doubt that a halo was the thing mentioned in those scriptures.....especially when sun worshippers had the same halos depicted in their art. There is little in the way of Christian art until the later centuries because the first Christians were very mindful of the second commandment in Exodus 20, not to "make" images of "anything". An image does not have to be three dimensional....an icon is an image, is it not?

While we're at it, are there any other questions of Christian art and iconography you'd like to have clarified? I'm more than happy to explain to you the historical, Biblical and theological foundations of iconography, and many of the elements and motifs employed therein
.

Yes please, I'd like to hear how the Orthodox church justifies its use of images, statues, icons and such, since the scriptural command was not to "make" an image of "anything" at all. (Ex 20:4, 5) Even the crucifix is an image. The veneration of these things just compounds that commandment in my view, but by all means, an explanation is most welcome...I am curious. :)
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Shiranui117 said:
What evidence do you have that Caesar continued to worship Zeus, or that he presided over the Roman church? Yes, Constantine called the Council of Nicaea--but it was the bishops who decided the outcome of the council, not Constantine. I certainly see no mention of Constantine wielding power over the Roman church, or any other church, for that matter.

Some scholarly works may disagree with you.....

Concerning Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, what role did the unbaptized Emperor Constantine play at that Council of Bishops? The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”
After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he was determined to solidify his empire.

Regarding the final document that was drafted in Nicaea under Constantine’s auspices, Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) observes: “It shows [Constantine’s] indifference to doctrinal matters, . . . his stubborn insistence in trying to restore unity within the church at any cost, and finally his conviction that as ‘bishop of those outside the church’ he had the final say about any religious matter.”
Could God’s spirit possibly have been behind the decisions made at that council?(Compare Acts 15:28, 29)

Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins. The Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “Constantine showed equal favour to both religions. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights.”

“Constantine never became a Christian,”
states the encyclopedia Hidria, adding: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.”

Down to the day of his death in 337 C.E., Constantine bore the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of religious matters in the Roman Empire. Regarding his baptism, it is reasonable to ask, Was it preceded by genuine repentance and a turning around, as required in the Scriptures? (Acts 2:38, 40, 41) Was it a complete water immersion as a symbol of Constantine’s dedication to God? (Compare Acts 8:36-39)
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Infant baptism is far from meaningless. It brings children into the Kingdom of God here on earth, the bride of Christ, the ark of salvation, the Church. Baptism calls down the Holy Spirit upon the children, so that from the very start of their lives they may be well-pleasing to God, walking in all their days according to God's commandments and under the shelter of His wings. Henceforth, they are being brought up and trained in grace. Remember Proverbs 22:6--Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
No no no, I didn't mean that baptism is meaningless, (though for infants, it's completely meaningless to them) what I meant is, that today people baptize infants with 'God-parents' vowing to raise the child as a Christian if anything happens to the parents, who vow to do so as well...is that correct?

How many actually mean it? How many parents have any real intention of raising their children as Christians in the full sense of the word? How many people baptize their babies because they view it (the act of baptism) as some sort of a spiritual insurance policy? Like God says if you don't dunk this baby in water and mumble the appropriate words, he wont allow it into heaven if it dies? I never quite understood that mentality. :(
Do Orthodox churches subscribe to belief in purgatory and limbo and hellfire?

Not at all! In the Orthodox Church, everyone is baptized by triple immersion. And most everyone in the Orthodox Church is baptized as an infant, unless you're a convert. Babies are fully immersed three times, and there is almost never any problem--just make them quick immersions, and all is well. I have served at numerous infant baptisms, and not once has there been an issue when the baby was fully immersed. The three immersions are done in three seconds total. It's quick, harmless, and it's over before the baby even knows!
Isn't that contrary to the whole idea of baptism in the first place though? Shouldn't the person being baptized know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it? Can you make a decision for someone else who might break that vow to God? (Ezek 5:4, 5)

I didn't know that babies were actually fully immersed under water in Orthodox churches. Most churches just do a sprinkling here. Nobody really takes it seriously. The majority of children these days are not 'Christened'. Their parents believe came from monkeys so they see no point. :D

I did a first aid course about a year ago, and the instructor said it takes as little as a couple of teaspoons of water in the lungs for a person to drown. It's a wonder that infant immersion is not outlawed.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Shiranui117 said:
Jay said:
Judaism was a type for Christendom. Segregated, disunited and spiritually "lost" in man-made tradition, which was put before the word of God.
Hey now, let's keep the bashing of others' religions out of this. I could just as easily accuse the Jehovah's Witnesses of putting blind trust in the man-made traditions and interpretations of the Watchtower Society, and looking more to the WTS than to the Bible, but I'm not.
I wasn't bashing anyone, merely restating what Jesus said. He decried the Jewish leaders of his day for sticking to their oral traditions and invalidating the word of God. (Matt 15:1, 6) The Bible speaks about the Sadducees and the Scribes and Pharisees who were among the sectarian divisions of Judaism (Matt 23:1-3, Acts 5:17) and he was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". (Matt 15:24) How did they get lost? How often did Jesus castigate the Pharisees for their poor shepherding? (Matt 10:13-35)

Christendom (religions that sprang from the mother church, Roman Catholicism) fell into the same trap as Judaism did, elevating men above one another in a powerful hierarchy. (Matt 23:8-12) We all know that power corrupts and it did, horribly.
Where does the idea of a Pope come from? Pontifex Maximus was a pagan Roman title, held by Constantine and the title 'Pontiff' is still used by the Pope today. It was never Christian.

The church adopted many Jewish trappings like the temple, alter and the priesthood. Special vestments for the priests or other distinctive clothing that made them separate from their fellow believers. These did not exist in original Christianity because it was a completely different system of worship. The temple and priesthood were now heavenly. (John 14:1-4)
They also adopted many pagan Roman beliefs and celebrations, under Constantine, introducing idolatry and renamed festivals with dubious origins, which they still hold to this day.

Since the WT Society is a Bible Society, I can honestly say that the WT Society doesn't teach me anything....it is a printery that produces Bibles and Bible literature for distribution to the public. :p It interprets nothing.

The global Christian body to which I belong are known as Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah has always had his witnesses. Israel were called his Witnesses (Isa 43:10)
Heb 11 is a list of the witnesses of Jehovah all the way back to Abel. (Heb 12:1)

Everything we believe is from the Bible, not from man made traditions. We make sure of it. :)
 

Knight of Albion

Well-Known Member
How long can you live? Surely it's not the number of years but what you do with them that matters...

'Here we are, here and now, this is our big moment in time. So let us try and do something - something good, something beautiful - with the precious years allotted to us.'
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
How long can you live? Surely it's not the number of years but what you do with them that matters...

'Here we are, here and now, this is our big moment in time. So let us try and do something - something good, something beautiful - with the precious years allotted to us.'
Very true. What's the point of living forever if that life is dull, unfulfilling, and without meaning or purpose? :)
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of Adonai. We bless you from the house of Adonai.
Adonai is God, and he gives us light. Join in the pilgrim festival with branches all the way to the horns of the altar."
(CJB)
Yeah, that's the way the Masoretic text reads. I prefer the Septuagint, which was quoted by the Apostles.

I had to do some research on this as I am not familiar with Orthodox beliefs. Hopefully I will be by the finish of our discussion :)
That would be most excellent. :)

e·piph·a·ny

1.( initial capital letter ) a Christian festival. . .
2. an appearance or manifestation, especially of a deity.
3. a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something, usually initiated by some simple, homely, or commonplace occurrence or experience.

Is the holiday you spoke about connected to the first definition here or is it about all of the above?
There are several holidays called "Theophany" or "Epiphany". There's the one about the Magi. The most famous feast day called Theophany (and the one with the longest service, aside from Pascha and the Nativity of the Lord)

I know we have a "blessing of the fleet" near where I live. Is that also an exclusive Orthodox tradition or just for the Greek church?
Very interesting, I didn't even know there was such a thing. But then again, my home jurisdiction traces its ancestry back to Ruthenia in the Carpathian mountains, so we don't really have a fleet to bless. :eek: I think it's more a practice of those Orthodox churches which have territory along the sea, such as the Greeks, Russians, etc.

Do all Orthodox churches share the same beliefs? Russian, Greek, Eastern etc? Or are there differences between them?
Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc. are all parts of the larger Eastern Orthodox Church. Each and every one of them share the same beliefs.

Eastern Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church organization

There are the Oriental Orthodox, who had a schism with us Eastern Orthodox in 451 after some misunderstandings. The Oriental Orthodox include the Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox. They pretty much share the same exact beliefs as us Eastern Orthodox, though we have a few semantical differences in how we view Christology--the Oriental Orthodox place a bit more emphasis on the unity of Christ's two natures (divine and human), whereas we Eastern Orthodox place a bit more emphasis on the distinction of Christ's two natures. We both have essentially the same Christology, however, and hierarchs on both sides of the fence have recognized this.

How does your church feel about the divine name and its usage? After all Jesus said "Hallowed be thy name" not "hallowed be thy title".

To be continued......
Given that the Divine Name could only be uttered once per year by the high priest in the Holy of Holies, we feel that the Divine Name should be treated with the utmost respect, and not just thrown around. It was the common practice, even in the New Testament to not use the Tetragrammaton, but instead to use such titles as Kyrios and Theos. As long as it is clear to Whom we are referring, there should be no issue. We can give glory to God's name without using it directly.
Hmmm....Click on the link below.....a brief look at these pics may take away any doubt that the halo is not exactly Christian. :eek: Borrowed perhaps?

Picture Gallery

"Shining as illuminators in the world" doesn't mean having sunbeams coming out of your head surely? :eek:
Certainly not, but it is definitely one of the best ways to depict it. In doing so, we rehabilitate certain universal symbols, and put them back into their proper context&#8212;we show the true Light that comes from God, and not the false light of idols and so-called &#8220;gods.&#8221; Remember, God is called the &#8220;Father of Lights&#8221; in the Book of James.

I doubt that a halo was the thing mentioned in those scriptures.....especially when sun worshippers had the same halos depicted in their art. There is little in the way of Christian art until the later centuries because the first Christians were very mindful of the second commandment in Exodus 20, not to "make" images of "anything". An image does not have to be three dimensional....an icon is an image, is it not?
Actually, there&#8217;s little in the way of Christian art from the first century, because 1. Christians heard the Scriptures in synagogues on Saturday, with many synagogues already being artistically decorated and featuring images of animals, floral patterns, and Biblical scenes (which are very reminiscent of later Eastern Orthodox iconography, if you&#8217;ll remember the synagogue links I posted earlier in the thread&#8212;here they are again if you need them). And 2: Christians met in houses in the early days before we were chased into the catacombs, and many houses from them are no longer standing, so we have no examples of Christian art from that age.

Yes please, I'd like to hear how the Orthodox church justifies its use of images, statues, icons and such, since the scriptural command was not to "make" an image of "anything" at all. (Ex 20:4, 5) Even the crucifix is an image. The veneration of these things just compounds that commandment in my view, but by all means, an explanation is most welcome...I am curious. :)
The Scriptural command was to not make an image of anything and worship or serve it.

This is easily seen, when God Himself tells the Israelites to make two cherubim. &#8220;18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. 20 And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat.&#8221; (Exodus 25:18-20)

Solomon also ornately decorates God&#8217;s Temple with carved images, in 1 Kings 6: &#8220;The inside of the temple was cedar, carved with ornamental buds and open flowers. . . Inside the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. 24 One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub five cubits: ten cubits from the tip of one wing to the tip of the other. 25 And the other cherub was ten cubits; both cherubim were of the same size and shape. . . 27 Then he set the cherubim inside the inner room; and they stretched out the wings of the cherubim so that the wing of the one touched one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall. And their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 Also he overlaid the cherubim with gold.
29 Then he carved all the walls of the temple all around, both the inner and outer sanctuaries, with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. . . The two doors were of olive wood; and he carved on them figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread gold on the cherubim and on the palm trees...&#8221;

Even after this, God blessed Solomon. Solomon didn&#8217;t violate God&#8217;s commandment by lavishly decorating the Temple. And God certainly didn&#8217;t violate His own commandment by instructing the Hebrews to make two gold statues of cherubim. So, making images and icons is a perfectly acceptable practice&#8212;as long as you don&#8217;t worship these images or icons.

In fact, there are two central ideas in Orthodox theology that are the basis for iconographic depictions of Christ and the Saints:
1: Christ Himself is the visible image of the invisible God. We cannot depict God the Father as He is, for &#8220;no one has seen God&#8221; as we have discussed, and no one as we currently are may see Him and live. But we can depict God the Son, because He came and took on flesh. He had a real, physical body, and it is acceptable to depict Him the way He looked while walking this earth. Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).
2: We ourselves, as humans, are made in the IMAGE and likeness of God. We all have the image of God within us. When we give respect to each other, we give respect to God in Whose image we are made&#8212;just as what we do unto the least of our brethren, we do unto Christ our God.

We venerate the Saints, because they are the ones in whom God magnified His will (Psalm 15:3). The Complete Jewish Bible renders that verse &#8220;The holy people in the land are the ones who are worthy of honor; all my pleasure is in them.&#8221; The Saints are worthy of our honor, in that they are examples of the faithful who walked in God&#8217;s ways and did His will."

Icons also aim to show the world in its redeemed state, with God&#8217;s light shining through everything. If you notice, in icons, there&#8217;s no clear light source as in realistic art. Rather, the light seems to come from within people&#8212;symbolizing God&#8217;s divine Light that permeates all of creation. This is also why nearly all the backgrounds in icons are gold.
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Concerning Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, what role did the unbaptized Emperor Constantine play at that Council of Bishops? ... “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions ... Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”
After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” ...What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he was determined to solidify his empire.
Do you have a source for the full context?

Even without having the full context, I’ve done enough research to say this much: The belief that Jesus was not God and not divine started with either Arius or his teacher Lucian. In fact, Arius’s grandteacher Paul of Samosata actually held the opposite position of Sabellianism! So either Lucian, his student Arius, or both of them together decided to take the extreme opposite position of Paul of Samosata, and deny Jesus’ divinity altogether, in order to put as much distance as possible between themselves and their teacher Paul of Samosata!

At the First Council of Nicaea, only around 22 of the 318 bishops from all over the Empire had even heard of Arius’s teaching—and most of these 22 abandoned Arius as soon as they heard his teaching explained more thoroughly!

“It shows [Constantine’s] indifference to doctrinal matters, . . . his stubborn insistence in trying to restore unity within the church at any cost, and finally his conviction that as ‘bishop of those outside the church’ he had the final say about any religious matter.”
Could God’s spirit possibly have been behind the decisions made at that council?
Do you have a source so I can read the full context?

And yes, the Holy Spirit was most certainly with the Council.

If anything, Constantine’s indifference and ignorance regarding what happened at the Council of Nicaea should be rather strong proof that he exercised no influence on what decision was reached—he only wanted to ensure that a decision was reached, whether in favor of Arianism, Orthodoxy, Sabellianism, or some other position.

Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins... “Constantine showed equal favour to both religions. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights.”
That is very badly twisted out of context. Here’s the quote in fuller context: “For a time it seemed as if merely tolerance and equality were to prevail. Constantine showed equal favour to both religious. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights” Source

In other words, Constantine protected freedom of religion for all the subjects of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t mean that he himself continued to be a pagan; it simply meant that he continued to uphold the civil rights of those who follow other religions, as any decent leader would.

“Constantine never became a Christian,” states the encyclopedia Hidria, adding: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.”
Do you have a link to this? Where do these people get their sources? What are their sources?

Down to the day of his death in 337 C.E., Constantine bore the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of religious matters in the Roman Empire. Regarding his baptism, it is reasonable to ask, Was it preceded by genuine repentance and a turning around, as required in the Scriptures? Was it a complete water immersion as a symbol of Constantine’s dedication to God?
I believe his baptism was made with true repentance. It may or may not have been a full immersion (which is not always possible to do; for instance, if someone is enfeebled and unable to be immersed, or if there is not enough water to make a full immersion, a pouring may be done instead). I think trying to say that Constantine was never a genuine Christian is to pass a judgement that is not ours to make.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
what I meant is, that today people baptize infants with 'God-parents' vowing to raise the child as a Christian if anything happens to the parents, who vow to do so as well...is that correct?
Yes.

How many actually mean it? How many parents have any real intention of raising their children as Christians in the full sense of the word?
Very many do. But very many don’t. Just the same, there are many Christians who are baptized, but then fail to follow through and live lives of faith.

How many people baptize their babies because they view it (the act of baptism) as some sort of a spiritual insurance policy? Like God says if you don't dunk this baby in water and mumble the appropriate words, he wont allow it into heaven if it dies? I never quite understood that mentality. :(
You're right--it’s not about going through a magic ritual and BAM, you’re saved. We baptize our babies to bring them into the Church, restore their relationship with God marred by ancestral sin (not original sin, but ancestral sin), and give them the gift of the Holy Spirit, and all the grace that comes with Him.

Do Orthodox churches subscribe to belief in purgatory and limbo and hellfire?
We have no concept of purgatory, though we do believe that, while everyone is dead before the time of the Resurrection, we receive a particular judgement that gives us a foretaste of either Heaven or Hell. Prayers for the dead can positively affect their judgement, however—see 2 Maccabees 12:40-41.

We do have a concept of hellfire--though that hellfire is actually the fire of God's love. Remember Hebrews 12:4, "our God is a consuming fire." To get an idea of Heaven and Hell in Orthodox theology, see this nice little article. It's very different from most Western Christian conceptions.

Isn't that contrary to the whole idea of baptism in the first place though? Shouldn't the person being baptized know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it? Can you make a decision for someone else who might break that vow to God?
The idea of baptism is to wash away sins and to receive the Holy Spirit. Hannah vowed to dedicate Samuel to God--and Samuel fulfilled the vow his mother made on his behalf.

I didn't know that babies were actually fully immersed under water in Orthodox churches. Most churches just do a sprinkling here. Nobody really takes it seriously. The majority of children these days are not 'Christened'.
Hah, not so in the Orthodox Church—we keep the most ancient practice of baptizing converts/babies, and immediately thereafter chrismating them and then giving them the Eucharist. :)

It's a wonder that infant immersion is not outlawed.
Babies can be thrown into water and swim to the surface without a problem. I don’t see why three quick dunkings would be an issue.

Christendom (religions that sprang from the mother church, Roman Catholicism) fell into the same trap as Judaism did, elevating men above one another in a powerful hierarchy. (Matt 23:8-12) We all know that power corrupts and it did, horribly.
This is correct if you’re talking about WESTERN Christianity. We Eastern Christians (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East) do not spring from the Roman Church, but grew up independently of it, and alongside it. Many of our Churches actually predate the Roman Church.

Where does the idea of a Pope come from? Pontifex Maximus was a pagan Roman title, held by Constantine and the title 'Pontiff' is still used by the Pope today. It was never Christian.
The idea of a Pope comes from Latin “Papa,” or “Father.” The Pope was originally just called the Bishop of Rome. In fact, the Bishop of Alexandria was the first one to bear the name “Pope”! The Roman Papacy as we know it today developed in response to many unique and complicated circumstances in the West... Needless to say, the history of the development of the Papacy is complicated, and we can’t just jump to conclusions and call the Pope the Anti-Christ, or accuse him of being power-hungry or pagan-influenced. Such a thing would be overly-simplistic and ignorant of history. A much further in-depth analysis is needed.

The church adopted many Jewish trappings like the temple, alter and the priesthood. Special vestments for the priests or other distinctive clothing that made them separate from their fellow believers. These did not exist in original Christianity because it was a completely different system of worship. The temple and priesthood were now heavenly.
You're saying that Jewish influences weren’t part of original Christianity? I believe I already pointed you to proof that priests were part of earliest Christianity. Would you like me to show it again?

They also adopted many pagan Roman beliefs and celebrations, under Constantine, introducing idolatry and renamed festivals with dubious origins, which they still hold to this day.
Festivals weren’t renamed, but replaced. Idolatry wasn’t adopted, either. Having once been a Roman Catholic, and being intimately familiar with the history of the Church, I’m very well-read on all this.

Everything we believe is from the Bible, not from man made traditions. We make sure of it. :)
I’m sure you do. Many different beliefs can come from the Bible, even contradictory ones.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
There are several holidays called "Theophany" or "Epiphany". There's the one about the Magi. The most famous feast day called Theophany (and the one with the longest service, aside from Pascha and the Nativity of the Lord)
Can you tell me where these originated and how they are celebrated?

Who do you believe the magi were, and what was their connection to the Christ?

Given that the Divine Name could only be uttered once per year by the high priest in the Holy of Holies, we feel that the Divine Name should be treated with the utmost respect, and not just thrown around. It was the common practice, even in the New Testament to not use the Tetragrammaton, but instead to use such titles as Kyrios and Theos. As long as it is clear to Whom we are referring, there should be no issue. We can give glory to God's name without using it directly.
Since this is a Jewish tradition and not a practice that was commanded by Jehovah, I am assuming that the EO church is following that Jewish tradition rather than scripture.
Catholicism is prone to do that I have noticed. All of the trappings associated with Jehovah's worship were prescribed by God himself, down to the last detail. No such detail was prescribed for Christian worship.

Just look at the Psalms and see how often the tetragrammaton was used by King David. Wherever the tetragrammaton was in the text, later translations in English replaced it by substituting "the LORD" in large and small capitals. In the OT the tetragrammaton was substituted almost 7,000 times. Does that sound like the ancient Jews had a problem using the divine name in their worship and in their prayers?

The later prophets had no hesitation to use the divine name either.

The apostle Paul said..."For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved(Rom 10:13 NWT) He was quoting Joel 2:32.

Most translations have Paul saying "for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NASB)

For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NLT)

It should read the way the NWT translates it. There is no ambiguity over which "Lord" is being spoken about. It wasn't Jesus.

Certainly not, but it is definitely one of the best ways to depict it. In doing so, we rehabilitate certain universal symbols, and put them back into their proper context—we show the true Light that comes from God, and not the false light of idols and so-called “gods.” Remember, God is called the “Father of Lights” in the Book of James.
I don't see it that way. I see the church adopting pagan symbols and festivals and attempting to "Christianize" them. There is no such thing of course.
Is it a co-incidence that the Bible identifies Satan as pretending to be "an angel of light"? (2 Cor 11:14, 15) To me, using any images in connection with our worship is a contamination of truth and a direct violation of what God told his people about the practices of the pagan nations. (Deut 18:9)

Actually, there’s little in the way of Christian art from the first century, because 1. Christians heard the Scriptures in synagogues on Saturday, with many synagogues already being artistically decorated and featuring images of animals, floral patterns, and Biblical scenes (which are very reminiscent of later Eastern Orthodox iconography, if you’ll remember the synagogue links I posted earlier in the thread—here they are again if you need them).
Having decorations in the temple (which were all prescribed by God and instruction provided in written form) or adornments in the synagogue, and making religious images that are venerated, are two entirely different things. We both know that these things take on the role of an idol in the homes of many people. As I mentioned, even a crucifix is an image.

The command in Ex 20 began by saying not to "MAKE" them. So regardless of what you do with them, "making" an image of "anything" was prohibited, so that idolatry could not be practiced even unintentionally.

Is Mary venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy? I assume by your avatar that she is. How far is her position taken by the church? What place does she have in the scheme of things?

And 2: Christians met in houses in the early days before we were chased into the catacombs, and many houses from them are no longer standing, so we have no examples of Christian art from that age.
It was foretold that Christ's followers would be hated and persecuted by the world. So perhaps this is why no specific buildings were prescribed for Christians. The places in which they met were humble without a lot of ornate trappings. Jesus himself reflected that in his lifestyle. He did not dress differently to his disciples, nor did he expect to live in a palace with servants, despite being the son of God.

The Scriptural command was to not make an image of anything and worship or serve it.
You can see from your own words that the command was "not to make an image of anything" let alone bow down and worship it.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
This is easily seen, when God Himself tells the Israelites to make two cherubim. “18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. 20 And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat.” (Exodus 25:18-20)
This was specifically prescribed for the Jewish temple, but no such prescription exists for Christianity.

Even after this, God blessed Solomon. Solomon didn’t violate God’s commandment by lavishly decorating the Temple. And God certainly didn’t violate His own commandment by instructing the Hebrews to make two gold statues of cherubim. So, making images and icons is a perfectly acceptable practice—as long as you don’t worship these images or icons.
You do realize that these cherubs were not seen by anyone except the High Priest once a year? They were in the Most Holy compartment of the temple. No idolatry was possible by the people viewing these representations.

In fact, there are two central ideas in Orthodox theology that are the basis for iconographic depictions of Christ and the Saints:
1: Christ Himself is the visible image of the invisible God. We cannot depict God the Father as He is, for “no one has seen God” as we have discussed, and no one as we currently are may see Him and live. But we can depict God the Son, because He came and took on flesh. He had a real, physical body, and it is acceptable to depict Him the way He looked while walking this earth. Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).
Yes he is "the image of the invisible God". Pretty difficult to make an image of something invisible.
I do not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, but that he was "the son of God". I have never seen the expression "God the Son" written once in scripture, have you? I have never seen "God the Holy Spirit" either.

2: We ourselves, as humans, are made in the IMAGE and likeness of God. We all have the image of God within us. When we give respect to each other, we give respect to God in Whose image we are made—just as what we do unto the least of our brethren, we do unto Christ our God.
I have a different understanding about being made in God's image and likeness.
I believe that this relates to his qualities, which are demonstrated only in humans.
We alone have a moral sense and can truly love from the heart by our own choices and evaluations. We alone have an inbuilt sense of justice that reflects God's standards of justice. We alone can use wisdom from things learned off the printed page and also from oral teachings. We alone can plan for the future based on information we have been given or on personal experience. We alone were promised everlasting life, and we alone have a spiritual side to our nature that can be expressed from our heart. We also have free will which can enhance and add variety to our lives.

We venerate the Saints, because they are the ones in whom God magnified His will (Psalm 15:3). The Complete Jewish Bible renders that verse “The holy people in the land are the ones who are worthy of honor; all my pleasure is in them.” The Saints are worthy of our honor, in that they are examples of the faithful who walked in God’s ways and did His will."
Is there scriptural admonition to venerate any human being? I believe that only Jehovah and his son are worthy of such veneration. (Rev 4:11) We can honor those who have demonstrated outstanding faith, but I see no admonition to venerate the "saints".

We are asked to address all prayers to God through Jesus.
Do EO pray to Mary and the Saints?

That verse in Psalm 16:3 in the CJB was speaking about Jews; these were holy people because they were in a covenant relationship with Jehovah. He takes pleasure in those who love his laws. (Psalm 119:97)
The new covenant mediated by Jesus Christ was designed to choose other "saints" (holy ones) who will rule with Christ in heaven. They are a finite number and they are chosen from the earth. They will be "kings and priests" who will experience the "first resurrection". (Rev 20:6)

May I ask who or what you understand "saints" to be?

Icons also aim to show the world in its redeemed state, with God’s light shining through everything. If you notice, in icons, there’s no clear light source as in realistic art. Rather, the light seems to come from within people—symbolizing God’s divine Light that permeates all of creation. This is also why nearly all the backgrounds in icons are gold.
I know that is what many have come to accept but the halos in iconic art did not originate in Christianity, as the link I provided showed you.

There are many things that Christendom teaches that are not quite what they seem to be, but they have been part of Church tradition for so long, that most have no idea about their origins. There has been a blending of true worship with false religious teachings all throughout mankind's history. The Jews repeatedly introduced pagan religious practices and God kept punishing them and correcting them until it was time for Messiah's appearance. Christ came to gather the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" and to expose the religious leaders for what they were...hypocrites of the worst order. (Matt 23:13-15)

Today, Christendom has followed the same path as their Jewish predecessors. They had the opportunity to become rulers with Christ in his kingdom, but they chose instead to stick with the traditions handed down to them by those who corrupted Christianity in the very early centuries. This was the foretold apostasy. The "weeds" of Jesus' parable.
Like the Jews in Jesus' day, they want to hang onto their traditions in preference to being corrected with the truth from God's word. They seem to prefer it that way, so God does not prevent them from being deluded. (2 Thess 2:9-12) :(
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Can you tell me where these originated and how they are celebrated?
”Theophany” in the sense of the visitation of the Magi was originally lumped together into one big feast day with Christmas and the Circumcision of Christ. I should note that it’s the Western Christian practice to use the name “Theophany” for the Visitation of the Magi. Christmas was split off from Theophany and moved to December 25th, so the pagan converts to Christianity wouldn’t be tempted to engage in their old pagan celebrations. This moving of Christmas to December 25th was originally met with quite a bit of resistance by the Fathers, but it did its job—instead of partaking in pagan festivities, converts now had a safe Christian alternative. So rather than being a pagan influence, Christmas was actually established as a feast day to defend against pagan influence!


When we Eastern Christians say, “Theophany” we refer to the Feast of Christ’s baptism. This feast should be straightforward enough as to its origins. The service is celebrated with the standard Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and afterwards, there are many prayers for the blessing of water. In many Orthodox countries, the congregation would go to the local river/lake, and the priest would throw a cross into the river at the blessing of the waters. Then all the men would jump in the river and try to be the one to fetch the cross—and all this in winter! :D

The Feast of the Transfiguration (see Matthew 17) is also occasionally called “Theophany” as well.

Who do you believe the magi were, and what was their connection to the Christ?
Zoroastrian astrologers/astronomers who believed that the Star was the fulfillment of a Persian prophecy regarding a king. They visited Christ a while after He was born, but not on the day/night of His birth.

Since this is a Jewish tradition and not a practice that was commanded by Jehovah, I am assuming that the EO church is following that Jewish tradition rather than scripture.
Catholicism is prone to do that I have noticed. All of the trappings associated with Jehovah's worship were prescribed by God himself, down to the last detail. No such detail was prescribed for Christian worship.
See, this is the problem I have: Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not its replacement. It is only natural that we Christians would inherit many Jewish patterns of worship. Unless your “worship service” consists entirely of lectures, it’s based off the Jewish pattern of worship: Singing Psalms, using standardized prayers, praying a LOT to God, praising Him, offering repentance of our sins, using incense, hearing readings from Scripture, and having a short explanation of the Scriptures that were read.

Just look at the Psalms and see how often the tetragrammaton was used by King David. Wherever the tetragrammaton was in the text, later translations in English replaced it by substituting "the LORD" in large and small capitals. In the OT the tetragrammaton was substituted almost 7,000 times. Does that sound like the ancient Jews had a problem using the divine name in their worship and in their prayers?
But how often did they recite it? The fact that we don’t even know how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced should be rather telling.

The apostle Paul said..."For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved(Rom 10:13 NWT) He was quoting Joel 2:32.
The Greek for Romans 10:13 doesn’t say “Jehovah,” it uses “Kyrion,” Lord.

Most translations have Paul saying
"for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NASB)

For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (NLT)

It should read the way the NWT translates it. There is no ambiguity over which "Lord" is being spoken about. It wasn't Jesus.
I checked the Septuagint which Paul was quoting from. Paul was quoting Joel 3:5 (in the Septuagint numbering), and Joel 3:5 says “And it shall come to pass [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved…” And in the Greek, “&#954;&#945;&#8054; &#7956;&#963;&#964;&#945;&#953;, &#960;&#8118;&#962;, &#8003;&#962; &#7938;&#957; &#7952;&#960;&#953;&#954;&#945;&#955;&#8051;&#963;&#951;&#964;&#945;&#953; &#964;&#8056; &#8004;&#957;&#959;&#956;&#945; &#922;&#965;&#961;&#8055;&#959;&#965;…” The NWT, rather than translating the Greek of Romans 10:13 properly, is instead changing the text to reflect what the editors thought it should be.

So even in the Septuagint, two hundred years before Christ, the Tetragrammaton was being substituted by the Jews for such things as “Kyrios,” or “Lord.” It’s not just the recent English translations that have been doing this; it’s been going on for over two thousand years.

I don't see it that way. I see the church adopting pagan symbols and festivals and attempting to "Christianize" them. There is no such thing of course.
Is it a co-incidence that the Bible identifies Satan as pretending to be "an angel of light"? (2 Cor 11:14, 15) To me, using any images in connection with our worship is a contamination of truth and a direct violation of what God told his people about the practices of the pagan nations. (Deut 18:9)
You’re free to that belief, nor do I pretend to be able to convince you otherwise. I merely seek to present the teaching of my Church as best as I am able.

Having decorations in the temple (which were all prescribed by God and instruction provided in written form) or adornments in the synagogue, and making religious images that are venerated, are two entirely different things. We both know that these things take on the role of an idol in the homes of many people. As I mentioned, even a crucifix is an image.
Icons are NOT idols. We make that very clear in our teachings. If any Orthodox Christian is guilty of idolatry, or of treating icons as idols then that is a grievous sin, and against the teaching of the Church. Icons do NOT take on the role of idols (or at least they shouldn’t) in the homes of Orthodox Christians. They definitely don’t in mine.

The command in Ex 20 began by saying not to "MAKE" them. So regardless of what you do with them, "making" an image of "anything" was prohibited, so that idolatry could not be practiced even unintentionally.
Then did Solomon break this commandment by ornately decorating the whole of the Temple? Did God break His own commandment by telling the Hebrews to make cherubim? Did the Jews at Dura break the commandment by covering the walls of their synagogue with icons of Biblical scenes?

Is Mary venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy? I assume by your avatar that she is. How far is her position taken by the church? What place does she have in the scheme of things?
Yes, we give her great respect. She is the first Christian. She is the New Eve, who said “Yes” to God of her own free will. She undid Eve’s disobedience with her own obedience. She opened the way for the reconciliation of God and man. She broke ground for the fountain of living water, Christ our God, to spring forth into the world. We call her womb “more spacious than the heavens,” because she contained in her womb the Uncontainable. Given that she is Jesus’ mother, and that Christ did His first miracle at Mary’s request, her prayers on behalf of the Christian race are especially powerful.

In short, every statement we make about Mary is actually a statement about Christ. All the honor we attribute to Mary is because of Christ. “Henceforth shall all generations call me blessed,” Mary says in her Magnificat. Even our calling Mary “Theotokos” is rather a statement about Christ—Mary is the Mother of God, meaning that Jesus did not cease to be God while on earth.

It was foretold that Christ's followers would be hated and persecuted by the world. So perhaps this is why no specific buildings were prescribed for Christians. The places in which they met were humble without a lot of ornate trappings. Jesus himself reflected that in his lifestyle. He did not dress differently to his disciples, nor did he expect to live in a palace with servants, despite being the son of God.
You may find it interesting to note that there is a Russian Orthodox proverb, “The Church is not in the logs, but in the ribs.” This may strike you as ironic, considering how ornately and beautifully many Russian Orthodox churches are, being gilded with gold and covered with rich iconography. Even though Russian Orthodox Churches are lavishly decorated, the people recognize that these buildings are just churches, but not the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, the whole Christian family not the buildings in which we worship. You could destroy every Orthodox church building in the world, and Orthodoxy would go on unchanged.

You can see from your own words that the command was "not to make an image of anything" let alone bow down and worship it.
You can see more clearly from my words that you cannot make an image of anything if you are making an image to be worshipped and served. Making images to tell stories or for decoration are perfectly acceptable. Are you opposed to children’s picture books? Are you opposed to photographs in the newspaper? Are you opposed to paintings, drawings, sketches, or other forms of artwork? All of these would be violations of the Second Commandment in your view, would they not?
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
This was specifically prescribed for the Jewish temple, but no such prescription exists for Christianity.

You do realize that these cherubs were not seen by anyone except the High Priest once a year? They were in the Most Holy compartment of the temple. No idolatry was possible by the people viewing these representations.
I think you may have missed the large section from 1 Kings 6 that I cited, which describes the whole of the Temple being decorated and carved with images of flower buds, cherubim and other things, including the parts accessible and visible to the people. I'll post it again so you can see.
Solomon also ornately decorates God&#8217;s Temple with carved images, in 1 Kings 6: &#8220;The inside of the temple was cedar, carved with ornamental buds and open flowers. . .
29Then he carved all the walls of the temple all around, both the inner and outer sanctuaries, with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. . . The two doors were of olive wood; and he carved on them figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread gold on the cherubim and on the palm trees...&#8221;​

In other words, images of cherubim and flora were abundant all throughout the Temple, and were plain to see for both the laypeople and the priesthood.

And in 1 Kings 9, God blesses the Temple filled with images and carvings: "The Lord said to him, &#8220;I have heard your prayer and your supplication, which you have made before Me; I have consecrated this house which you have built by putting My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually."

So, even though Solomon covered the Temple with images (which many say are banned altogether in the Ten Commandments), God blesses this Temple and promises to dwell in it forever. This can only mean that it IS permissible to make images--just as long as we don't worship or serve them. Would you accuse artists of breaking the Ten Commandments for painting pictures of animals? Why or why not?

Yes he is "the image of the invisible God". Pretty difficult to make an image of something invisible.
I do not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, but that he was "the son of God". I have never seen the expression "God the Son" written once in scripture, have you? I have never seen "God the Holy Spirit" either.
You are free to interpret the Scriptures as you wish. I was merely explaining some of the basic Biblical, theological and historical foundations of Orthodox iconography.

I have a different understanding about being made in God's image and likeness.
I believe that this relates to his qualities, which are demonstrated only in humans.
We alone have a moral sense and can truly love from the heart by our own choices and evaluations. We alone have an inbuilt sense of justice that reflects God's standards of justice. We alone can use wisdom from things learned off the printed page and also from oral teachings. We alone can plan for the future based on information we have been given or on personal experience. We alone were promised everlasting life, and we alone have a spiritual side to our nature that can be expressed from our heart. We also have free will which can enhance and add variety to our lives.
Note that I never said WHAT being made in God's image and likeness means, I merely said THAT we are made in His image and likeness--and some of the natural conclusions that entails. ;) You are in full agreement with the teaching of the Orthodox Church about what it means to be made in God's image. But God's image and likeness are two different things. In Orthodox terms, you got the part about God's image right. According to the Fathers, God's likeness entails being virtuous, holy and loving.

Is there scriptural admonition to venerate any human being? I believe that only Jehovah and his son are worthy of such veneration. (Rev 4:11) We can honor those who have demonstrated outstanding faith, but I see no admonition to venerate the "saints".
To venerate IS to honor someone. When we Orthodox say we "venerate" someone, we do NOT mean that we worship them or give them the adoration due to God alone. When we venerate a Saint, we are simply honoring them for their lives of faith, and for the example of holiness that they provide us.

We are asked to address all prayers to God through Jesus.
Do EO pray to Mary and the Saints?
We don't really pray to the Theotokos or the Saints. We simply ask them to pray for us, in much the same way that you would ask your family, your friends or your congregation to pray for you.

That verse in Psalm 16:3 in the CJB was speaking about Jews; these were holy people because they were in a covenant relationship with Jehovah. He takes pleasure in those who love his laws. (Psalm 119:97)
Does the verse lose its meaning when applied to those holy people who are members of the New Covenant? Are there no longer any holy people in the whole of the earth worthy of honor and beloved by God?

The new covenant mediated by Jesus Christ was designed to choose other "saints" (holy ones) who will rule with Christ in heaven. They are a finite number and they are chosen from the earth. They will be "kings and priests" who will experience the "first resurrection". (Rev 20:6)
So is the verse from Psalm 16:3 wholly inapplicable to the holy ones of the New Covenant? Are the Christian Saints not worthy of honor? Does God not delight in the Christian Saints?

May I ask who or what you understand "saints" to be?
Those who live lives of holiness in obedience to and cooperation with God. Those who demonstrate one or more virtues in their lives, and serve as shining examples of what it means to be Christian. There are Saints both alive on the earth, and Saints who have fallen asleep in the Lord and are now alive in Christ.

I know that is what many have come to accept but the halos in iconic art did not originate in Christianity, as the link I provided showed you.
There are certain universal symbols that are ubiquitous throughout all human cultures. Should we refuse to use any of these just because some pagans have used them? Are they useless for their meanings, just because some pagans have used them?

There are many things that Christendom teaches that are not quite what they seem to be, but they have been part of Church tradition for so long, that most have no idea about their origins.
They most certainly are what they seem to be. I've spent five years tearing apart Christian teachings in my search for the original Christian teachings, and all of the ideas I've examined are pure of any pagan influence. Many later Western Christian ideas are influenced by English or Roman legalism, but outside of that, the universal Christian teachings (the Trinity, Christmas, Pascha, the Hypostatic Union, the virgin birth, etc.) are free of any outside influence.

Today, Christendom has followed the same path as their Jewish predecessors. They had the opportunity to become rulers with Christ in his kingdom, but they chose instead to stick with the traditions handed down to them by those who corrupted Christianity in the very early centuries. This was the foretold apostasy. The "weeds" of Jesus' parable.
Like the Jews in Jesus' day, they want to hang onto their traditions in preference to being corrected with the truth from God's word. They seem to prefer it that way, so God does not prevent them from being deluded. (2 Thess 2:9-12)
You are free to have your own take on history. I have my own view after studying the primary sources and getting it straight from the horse's mouth. You may also want to get it straight from the horse's mouth sometime, and work with the primary sources--not encyclopediae, but the actual unadulterated writings of the students of the Apostles, and of the other Church Fathers. I have resources for you if you ever wish to engage in a study of Patristics; what you find will greatly surprise and impress you. I guarantee it. :)
 
Last edited:
Top