ZBP🦬

Asberg Catholic

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

1. 100% of the textual evidence from the first six centuries show the early church rejected the cultic use of icons.

2. Cornelius bowed (Proskuneō) to Peter in Acts, but Peter rejected it saying, “Stand up, I am only a man myself.”

Yet, the Eastern Orthodox church requires bowing and kissing of Peter’s Icon, which is *special pleading*.

3. The Second Council at Nicaea is untrustworthy because it was caught making up quotations supporting iconodulia and even dressed up two monks as envoys from the Jerusalem and Antioch patriarchs.

The Asiatic patriarchs only heard about the council after it already happened.

4. There is no criteria for accepting or rejecting councils and receptionism is a tautology.

Furthermore, any and all Tradition could be “received” by the church if you schism with those who disagree.

5. If new Tradition must be “received” by the church, then the filioque didn’t violate process.

6. The 1672 Council of Dositheos dogmatizes transubstantiation, original sin (via Jeremias II), withholding scripture from laymen, no salvation outside the Eastern Orthodox church, and the inerrancy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

7. The Eastern Orthodox church did not exist until 1054.

Being the "church of the apostles" must be shown, not assumed.

Today, the Greek and Russian churches have excommunicated each other, but Orthobros hide this fact from outsiders despite explicit statements by the Patriarchates.

8. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox churches don’t agree on one canon of scripture, so no they didn’t “give us the Bible”.

The Eastern Orthodox churches haven’t even given us *a* Bible yet.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Christ_Conserv @LutheranAnswers In reality, they never fence it.

But their Baptist faith and message says you must have had a believer's baptism, and by immersion, to partake.

Which is essentially fencing it to Baptists.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Christ_Conserv @LutheranAnswers So do baptists.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@TennisThoska @4everCatechumen @PageauJonathan @OrthodoxEthos @Acts17David @gavinortlund https://t.co/OaJDM2Ah7R

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@PageauJonathan @OrthodoxEthos @Acts17David @gavinortlund "It is very odd to us eastern orthodox, when people can read and see how much our doctrine has changed from the apostles."

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@LaughingChu @PageauJonathan @OrthodoxEthos @Acts17David @gavinortlund You can keep them.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@JakenKy1 @forsman_josh @PageauJonathan @OrthodoxEthos @Acts17David @gavinortlund @GodLogic_GL @InspiringPhilos *ahem*

https://t.co/rI3qDqooAV

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

-> Eastern Orthodox churches create their own form of salvation
"It's very complicated and ambiguous."
"Why do you care so much about salvation?"

Know this tactic. It is called Occam's butterknife.

see: Palamas, St. Gregory. Homily 53: On the Entry of the Mother of God into the Holy of Holies (p. 43). Mount Thabor Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@PageauJonathan @OrthodoxEthos @Acts17David @gavinortlund "It is very odd to us eastern orthodox, when people can read and see how much our doctrine has changed from the apostles."

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@lporiginalg No it's not. UK has no balls.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

For each of these points, you are assuming the eastern orthodox narrative is true then deducing what the evidence means.

You are not looking at the evidence and inferring (inductively) the best explanation.

That is no necessarily a problem, of course.

Consider each point to see what I mean.

1. If you assume the eastern orthodox narrative is true, then you would deduce that congregants at Dura Europos Church were venerating the scenes on the wall.

But if you simply saw narrative scenes on the wall, you would not be able to infer the congregants were venerating them. You would only be able to infer they most likely--but not certainly--were not using narrative scenes for veneration.

2. If you assume the eo narrative is true, then you would deduce that relics were used en lieu of icons and with the same theology (your theology).

But if you simply read Gregory of Nyssa’s Panegyric to Theodore the Recruit, you would only be able to infer that they were venerating relics, but not that they shared your theological equation of relics with icons.

3. Overall, if you assume the eo narrative is true, then you would deduce that Nicaea II was continuous with the theology of the apostles, but that the record was lost and, for some unlucky reason, only contrary evidence survived.

But if you simply look at the record that exists, you would only be able to infer that the rise of the cult of icons was a later development.

Are you wrong to work deductively from the assumed EO Narrative? Not necessarily, especially if you have other evidence for why EO is correct somewhere else.

However, I'd like to make sure we are not confusing:

--how the currently discussed evidence could possibly fit with an EO narrative--

with

--how the EO narrative is the best explanation given the currently discussed evidence--.

They are just two different endeavors.

Essentially, I feel like I just claimed "Icon veneration is not the best explanation to infer from the material evidence at dura europos church" and your response was, "Venerating narrative scenes at Dura Europos Church is consistent with the EO narrative of history."

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

1. 100% of the textual evidence from the first six centuries show the early church rejected the cultic use of icons.

2. Cornelius bowed (Proskuneō) to Peter in Acts, but Peter rejected it saying, “Stand up, I am only a man myself.”

Yet, the Eastern Orthodox church requires bowing and kissing of Peter’s Icon, which is *special pleading*.

3. The Second Council at Nicaea is untrustworthy because it was caught making up quotations supporting iconodulia and even dressed up two monks as envoys from the Jerusalem and Antioch patriarchs.

The Asiatic patriarchs only heard about the council after it already happened.

4. There is no criteria for accepting or rejecting councils and receptionism is a tautology.

Furthermore, any and all Tradition could be “received” by the church if you schism with those who disagree.

5. If new Tradition must be “received” by the church, then the filioque didn’t violate process.

6. The 1672 Council of Dositheos dogmatizes transubstantiation, original sin (via Jeremias II), withholding scripture from laymen, no salvation outside the Eastern Orthodox church, and the inerrancy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

7. The Eastern Orthodox church did not exist until 1054.

Being the "church of the apostles" must be shown, not assumed.

Today, the Greek and Russian churches have excommunicated each other, but Orthobros hide this fact from outsiders despite explicit statements by the Patriarchates.

8. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox churches don’t agree on one canon of scripture, so no they didn’t “give us the Bible”.

The Eastern Orthodox churches haven’t even given us *a* Bible yet.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

--Ok. Let's recall, my claim was: 100% of the textual evidence from the first six centuries show the early church rejected the cultic use of icons.

And the key counter example is a late 4th century attestation of relic veneration? I mean...I am happy to be on this side of that argument.

--About DUC, art historians try to guess how images were use. Typically, for veneration you see a portrait of a person.

At DUC you see, for example, David and goliath, Adam and eve, the 10 Virgins etc. One COULD pray through that kind of narrative image, but it is awkward, doesn't seem like the intent.

And that is the best kind of conclusion you can make with material evidence. If you want to really know how images were USED, you have to look at -textual- evidence.

--I implore you, ask yourself the question, when is the first textual evidence that the church was venerating Icons. And go on a journey to try to find it.

Typically what you run into is just lame contortions/reaches, which don't even get you back to before Nicaea I.

What is more, is you get a bunch of church fathers with no contemplation of "Images are bad, but Icon veneration is ok". They are not even slightly aware of that distinction.

Then you hit Nicaea II and the iconodules stretch and break the historical record, or create outright forgeries--to the mockery of historians medieval and modern.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@LibOrNormal The Irish endure so much insult.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Bas3dPhilosophy Yeah. On the other hand, I wonder if we are really meant for X tbh. Look at the length of our posts lol.

I'd be embarrassed by how much I type, but there is no chance anyone else will read this thread.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

So, Arakaki would be another case of insane inference.

1. His centerpiece is Gregory's Funeral Panegyric for Theodore the Recruit.

Even his own sources (e.g., Pelikan and Kitzinger) say the panegyric is referring to relic veneration.

His claim that this is a demonstration of Icon veneration is off the wall.

His representation of Pelikan is very odd. You guys know Pelikan's Imago Dei wasn't an argument for early Christian Icon veneration right? Pelikan is a careful scholar who shows the later theological triumph of icons, not an early unbroken consensus on their veneration

What I find continually annoying is his framing of the "Protestant view" and "Pr. Ortlund's" Claims.

It is the historical consensus. Shall I just spam citations from scholarship saying as much? I have collected quite a few.

2. Dura Europas Church would be another example of material evidence you have to read veneration into.

2a. First look at the actual artwork that was in DUC, it is narrative not portraiture. As far as it points to anything, it points away from veneration.

2b. Then look at Google maps at where DUC is--way out on the frontier. It was an eclectic house church and not even a good representative of formal Christianity.

----
Just the extremely lame power and breadth of evidence by Arakaki is damning.

Like Mike Humphreys said about the Iconodules:

"Nothing better reveals this paucity of interest better than the research of the iconoclasts and iconophiles themselves. Both sides sought to prove the antiquity and legitimacy of their own views by collecting anthologies of supporting texts, and they would have combed the texts of the Church Fathers especially thoroughly. That they found so little is definitive testimony that there simply was no significant debate on Christian imagery in this period."

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Bas3dPhilosophy Not what who is saying? I havent re-read that scribbling yet. I was speaking generally.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

-Insane inference--like when the EO say "oh they put an-image over a door so we know they were venerating images!" That is insane. or "He covered a signet ring, and covering is a sign of respect, so early Christians venerated icons." That is also insane.

And things like that should make you wonder if perhaps it is the EO who are biased.

-Many EO arguments rely on anachronistic fallacies for iconodulia. Reading in their conclusions that one could never read out of church history.

For example, reading a carvout for icon veneration into the church fathers that doesnt exist--unless you just assume it exists.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Bas3dPhilosophy Ive read that post before. but it was a while ago.

can read again if you really want me to, but i feel like i have seen it all before.

-material evidence with insane inference
-anachronisms
-confusing xtology and iconodulia etc

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Bas3dPhilosophy no, the later councils are disputed within eo, is all. some accept, some dont.

i did not say that there exists eo who reject one of the first 7.

that is all

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Bas3dPhilosophy the existence of imagery in general does not inform you about how they were used, as hard as self published michael garten wishes it were so.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Bas3dPhilosophy I didnt say there exist eo who reject one of the first 7.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

@Bas3dPhilosophy i just read your first rebuttal and no further. just delete and try again.

[ZBP🦬 @AlohaSRB]

No, because there is zero textual evidence that xtians cultically used icons, and much that they didn't.

Just because you find a signet ring with a fish doesn't mean Christians were praying through images unless you are assuming your conclusion.

With that reasoning, you could excavate your local presby churc and conlude they were iconodules.

The rise of the cult of the icon was most likely ~680. You too can know this by reading what the church actually believed for about 2.5x as long as America existed.