We can acquaint each other. I am learning much about a religion that is not common where I live, so for that I am grateful.
Thank you. It's good to know that I'm able to be helpful.
:bow: Here's to a continually fruitful dialogue!
Not once can I see a depiction in the temple of a human being in deified form.
That wasn’t my point. My point was, there were carved images all throughout the Temple.
Cherubs were the only living things represented apart from Palm trees and blossoms.
If the Israelites worshipped a calf made out of gold, how much more do you think they might be inclined to worship a cherub?
Everything that was in the temple was specifically prescribed by God. Not one thing was the idea of men.
Which lends even more strength to the idea that it’s okay to carve and paint images of anything you want (except God the Father, Who has no form), as long as you don’t worship it.
The cherubs that were located in the Most Holy compartment of the Temple were gigantic figures of about 14.5 feet, overlaid with gold. Their wingspan was double that so that they filled the whole room. So it appears as if nothing in God's temple featured humans at all. Cherubs only were chosen.
Nor did I say that there were images of humans in the Temple at all. There were, however, images of humans (specifically, icons of Biblical scenes) in the synagogue at Dura.
I know that this is what the church teaches, but do you have scripture to assign this place to Mary as the "new Eve" or as 'the one who opened the way to reconciliation of God and man'?
Tell me, if Christ is the New Adam, then who do you suppose is the New Eve? The old Eve was the one who set into motion both her and Adam’s Fall through her disobedience to God’s command. The New Eve is the one who set into motion the redemption of mankind by saying “Yes” to God and allowing Christ to be born of her, with Christ being the one Who would set into motion humanity’s resurrection.
The Bible clearly assigns that role to Jesus.
Christ Himself is the way to reconciliation of God and man, as well as Himself being that reconciliation. Mary is the one who opened the way, because it was of her that Christ was born, with Christ reconciling humanity and Divinity within His own Person.
Mary is certainly "blessed among women" in being chosen to be the mother of Jesus Christ, but both of his earthly parents were important in the raising of Jesus in a dedicated Jewish household. In Jewish families, the father was head of the house and Mary, as a good Jewish wife and mother would have remained in her God assigned role. Joseph had obviously died before Jesus, as we see him assigning the care of his mother over to the apostle John. This was because his siblings were not yet believers.
I’d say that Jesus had no blood siblings; Joseph was a widower, who had had children from a previous marriage. If Mary had other children besides Jesus, then Jesus would have certainly entrusted Mary’s care to one of His brothers and sisters, and not to a man who was in no way related to Mary—to do otherwise would be absolutely unthinkable. It wasn’t just that Jesus’ siblings weren’t believers, that wouldn’t have mattered. It was that Jesus had no siblings in the first place, just step-siblings unrelated by blood to Mary.
Do you not think it strange that the title "mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" was given to ancient mother goddesses, pre-dating Christianity by centuries?
It's no stranger than pagan rulers being called “Good Shepherd” before Christ used the title in reference to Himself. And TBH, the title “Queen of Heaven” isn’t one really used incredibly often by us Orthodox; that one’s more of a Roman thing. The title “Theotokos,” as I said, is a statement about Christ, not so much about Mary.
The Scriptures do not specifically identify the “queen of the heavens.” It has been suggested that this goddess is to be identified with the Sumerian fertility goddess Inanna, Babylonian Ishtar. (From where we get the name "Easter")
Actually, the word “Easter” comes from the German “Oster,” which can roughly mean “out of the East”. “Easter” is just the literal translation of German
Oster. I should note that it’s only in a few Germanic languages that the name “Easter” is used; in nearly every other language, “Easter” is actually called “Pascha,” which means “Passover,” referring to Christ our Passover being risen from the dead. In many Slavic countries, the name is some derivative of the term “Great Day” or “Great Night,” because the day/night of Christ’s Resurrection is the greatest day/night of all. I personally don't say "Easter," I say "Pascha" instead. The name "Pascha" has no pagan connotations whatsoever, no Easter bunnies, no fertility goddess references, or anything silly like that.
Just co-incidence that these titles were transferred to Mary?
Just as much a coincidence as both Japanese and Egyptian emperors claiming lineage from the sun god/goddess (a really big coincidence).
Since the scriptures themselves give Mary no such title or any special accolades, I don't believe that Mary is anything more than the earthly mother of Jesus who became the Christ. She is to be honored as such but this is taken way too far by the catholic faith IMO.
They do get accused of Mariolatry a lot, and TBH, I think making Mary’s immaculate conception a dogma of the Faith is a little odd. If the Catholics ever dogmatize Mary as being the “Co-Mediatrix” of ALL grace given by God, i.e. every single grace the Holy Spirit gives comes through Mary, then yeah, that’s definitely taking it way too far. Thank God that this is still a fringe teaching by only some Catholics. We Orthodox do give a lot of honor to Mary, but we never take it to the line of Mariolatry by any means.
As it should be. Can I ask what you believe the flock would do if there was no building in which to worship?
We’d find a place. My Orthodox mission meets in a rented-out small business suite, and has been doing so for the last three years; we’re still saving up to build our own church. Other Orthodox parishes without their own building meet in parishioner’s houses, in small business suites, in backyards, under a tent, wherever we can find a place. During the fierce Soviet persecution of Orthodoxy, after our churches had been dynamited, after our cathedrals had been either desecrated and destroyed or turned into museums, after our monasteries were pillaged, after millions of Orthodox Christians were imprisoned, tortured, shot, blown up by grenades, sent to the Gulags, publicly humiliated, constantly ridiculed, and hunted down like wild animals, many imprisoned Orthodox Christians would gather secretly by night in the prison courtyard for Pascha, singing as quietly as possible while the priest served the Liturgy. Baptisms were done in bathtubs with just as much secrecy. Today, many Coptic Orthodox in Egypt are praying in the burnt-out shells of their churches and monasteries, after dozens of them were desecrated, sacked, looted and burned by Islamofascist supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
:no:actually.
We publish books and literature full of illustrations and depictions of Bible stories. They are just not all over the walls of the building in which we worship our God.
Alright, so you guys aren’t total iconoclasts.
We put icons all over our churches, because a picture’s worth a thousand words. If you study icons, you learn so much of Christian and Biblical teaching. If you want, I can provide a few examples of icons, and elaborate on the teaching they contain.
What do you do if you see an Orthodox believer kissing or crossing themselves before an icon or statue...
We Orthodox have no statues, just icons. We kiss the icons as a sign of respect to the Saint, and as a sign of respect for what God has done through them. My Byzantine Catholic priest once explained it this way: When you go to your grandma’s house, what’s the first thing you do? You go say hi to Grandma and give her a kiss. When you enter the church, you go say hi to Jesus. A soldier saluting the flag is not saluting a colored piece of cloth, but is instead saluting what that cloth stands for—his family, his homeland, those who have sacrificed so much that he may have a good life. Just the same, when we kiss an icon, we’re not giving honor to a piece of wood and paint. We’re giving honor to those holy ones who have gone before us, who have done everything they could to shine the light of Christ into the world. And, most importantly, we give honor to God Who made this all possible.
or one being placed on an alter with incense burning etc?
Icons are really only placed on altars when they’re being blessed for use, much like how you’d get a car blessed.
Is that considered idolatry?
The act itself isn’t important—it’s the intend behind the act that matters. If a Saint or icon is ever worshipped, then that’s a big problem. Not even an icon of Christ, let alone icons of the Saints, should
ever be worshipped. If you want to worship Christ, you don’t worship an icon of Christ to do it. You can give honor to Christ by venerating an icon, but no further.
Does the priest deal with such ones or does he leave it to them to figure out the problem?
The line that should not be crossed is common knowledge in Orthodoxy. Everyone knows the proper limit and the proper way. If someone doesn’t know that, then someone—clergy or layperson, it doesn’t matter—should instruct them immediately.
We are very careful to separate those things. Our elders would be offering counsel if we were to cross the line on that count, or any other.
The same is true of us Orthodox.
