Continuing at Perry Robinson's blog...
Fr Dcn Patrick (Monk Patrick) Says:
Yes, the Saints have appeared and talked with various people a large number of times and continue to do so to this day.
My guess is that any request for evidence of this will be shadowy and fourthhand accts from the Russian or Armenian frontier.
But heedless, I forge on: Evidence, please?
They know each other and those living and those living know them, this is assumed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the Transfiguration;
How is this assumed in that parable? Abraham specifically refused to send Lazarus back to the rich man's family. Instead, he indicated that the Scriptures should be enough for them. Sage advice for anyone, especially an EOx like yourself who is used to "exceed(ing) what is written" (1 Cor 4:6).
how do you think Peter knew who Moses and Elijah were when he had never seen them in the flesh and there is no evidence of Jesus introducing them?
1) It should be obvious that the Gospel writers rarely include the exhaustive acct of everythg that happened at any given incident; they write what they thought was important.
2) The entire event is miraculous. What's wrong with positing that Peter got a miraculous word of knowledge at that moment?
They do hear our prayers and answer them, especially the Mother of God.
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
There are a large number of miracles worked by the presence of icons and many give off sweet smelling myrrh.
Please give us a reason to think that such things could not be demonic in nature and origin.
When Jesus and the apostles worked wonders like obvious and public complete healings and writing Scripture, what about "giving off myrrh" is supposed to impress?
The alternate reading is not only not in keeping with the text, as Perry has showed, but would conflict with the experience of Christians for centuries.
The action of venerating icons ALSO conflicts with "the experience of Christians for centuries".
This is another double-edged argument.
, the 8th Century matters much because all your Scriptural arguments were brought out against icons and were demonstrated by those who were being killed for continuing to venerate icons that those Scriptures did not forbid the making and veneration of icons.
Really? Can you cite anyone from the 7th Ecum Council who dealt with the Scr and the Scr arguments against iconolatry? I'd be quite interested in seeing that.
You are not raising anything that the Orthodox have not heard before and dealt with 1200 years ago.
Longstanding evidence of longstanding obstinacy against God's commandments is not something I'd bring up or commend.
“Douleo”, to serve as a slave, God is not what we do to icons, so this term is irrelevant.
The point is that the LXX puts douleo and latreuo together numerous times when God says "don't". They go together in God's thinking.
This is yet ANOTHER example of your wrenching one element of the context argument I've brought fwd and complaining that it by itself doesn't mean anythg. It makes me wonder when you'll actually deal with the actual argument. Perry has repudiated the effect of intention, so you need to start showing that it's OK to do ALL OF THE THINGS I've laid out before things that aren't God.
Where does it say that in Scripture that truth is the equivalent of the Scriptures?
I've never made such a statement, as it is very clumsy.
Rather, Scripture is all true, by virtue of its being God's speech.
The Scriptures tell us that the truth is Christ and if the Church is pillar and bulwark of the truth it is so of the faith and preaching of Christ, whether recorded in Scripture or not, (John 21:25)
Yes, now all you need to do is to prove that these other examples of Christ's preaching you apparently have in mind actually are Christ's preaching. Please don't forget to show how you know that they are Christ's preaching.
You dismissed a paragraph of mine as circular reasoning. I wasn’t trying to argue a point based from mutually accepted premises but to explain the premises from which Orthodox are working to show how we understand the matter.
If you think I'm here asking WHAT EOx believe, I'm afraid you've seriously misunderstood. I'm here asking WHY you blv what you do, and how you substantiate it. Arguing in a circle all day just makes my point for me.
unless you suggest that we are not to obey or share the same faith as the Apostles or that each generation is not to imitate the faith of the previous generation
Sure we are, and the way we know what they taught is to study and appeal to the teachings they surely left - the Scripture.
And the Scripture tells me in Mark 7:1-13 to judge all so-called tradition by Scripture to see if it's good or not. I'm just obeying Jesus when I put your church to the test, especially since accepting your position means there's no way to judge whether your church is right or to judge between so-called "infallible interpreters".
So it follows from your own practice that you have a similar practice as we do in recognising the authority of those before us and appealing to them as authorities.
Not really. I have joined a local church, and that church has elders, so I'm in submission to them as far as they are in obedience to the Scripture.
Do you not also pick and choose your elders?
No, the elders identify a man they think would be a good elder, submits the candidate to the church at which point the church has a time period in which to make any concerns or reservations known to the elders; after that the elders add him to the office.
Do you not follow them because you agree with them and not others?
Yes, of course. Just like you do.
which means it is appropriate to appeal to their elders because our elders did and likewise for the previous generation back to the Apostles; the elders in this line we call Fathers.
You forgot that many have fallen into immorality and doctrinal error. So we need a fixed standard by which to judge these claimants to "elder". You use the circular appeal back to Sacred Tradition, even though you claim that this is the same process that brought about Sacred Tradition. I use the Scripture, which is free from this circularity.
Why don’t you imitate the faith and doctrine of say Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of John, the beloved disciple?
B/c what John wrote was theopneustos, and I have no such guarantees for what Ignatius blvd, for one thing.
Also, for other "Fathers", you don't take everything they wrote, but judge it by what you've already decided is Sacred Tradition.
the Orthodox Church did not start with a group of people deciding a doctrine and then picking Fathers to support it.
If you say so, but that is manifestly how it goes today.
The onus of proof is on you to prove that the Orthodox by their own premises have strayed from the Truth.
That's fine, and I've provided quite a lot of it.
The question of the Body and Blood is the literal reading of Scripture
What does this mean? "The question" is the "literal" reading? Please define "the question" and "the Body and Blood" and "literal".
The decision also had to be made on grounds other than the Scriptures alone, that is the received traditions of the elders, which were largely passed on orally (2 Thess 2:15).
Please provide evidence that these oral teachings were different than what was passed on in writing.
If you can't or think it doesn't matter, then please explain why you bring it up.
If after supporting trinitarianism for 4 years in your blog, as you claimed, it is so easy for you to abandon it in a conversation in trying to confuse me and in your desperate effort to find errors either in me or in Orthodoxy, it is not my fault if I think of it as a façade of your Judaism.
If 1 Tim 6 refers for you to the Father then for you only the Father is immortal.
Hmm, I guess I can see what you mean.
Now, we'd need to explain how the Son "alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see". But I suppose your point is that this is God, not simply the Father. I wonder how we'd thus account for how v. 14 says "the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time - He who is the only blessed...", thus differentiating between "He" and "our Lord Jesus Christ"?
Maybe I'd need to amend my point here to saying that if this is God, yet it does say that He "dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see", and we have to deal with that. Perhaps no one has seen God in His pure essence and glory, yet we saw Jesus, Who is the perfect representation of the Father, b/c He took flesh or clothed Himself in more mundane form to make theophanies in the OT.
HSAT, this does not give any room for making pictures of the Father, as your church has done, and so far nobody has repudiated. Feel free to be the first. Man up, take the lead.
But we do not picture the HS and the Father, not because nobody has seen them so far in a certain form, but because they have not been incarnated.
But you DID in fact picture the HS and the Father, remember? Like I said, feel free to repudiate it, but stop denying it exists.
if we were picturing the event of the baptism of Christ without the HS in the icon you would claim that it isn’t the real event because the appearance of the HS is omitted and the icon is a false one
How do you know? How about you ASK ME instead of trying to psychoanalyse?
FYI, I wouldn't say that.
Well, we do not picture the HS. We picture His epiphany.
That's another discussion, but even if I granted it, that's not the icon I linked to. It says "the Holy Trinity".
Do we venerate Judas when we venerate that icon? Of course, we do not.
1) You venerate plenty of ppl and there's a better than good chance that at least some of them are in Hell; thus you venerate denizens of Hell.
2) B/c you don't venerate an icon of Judas doesn't mean that it's OK to venerate other icons.
We venerate the event that it is depicted in the icon.
Now you're offering religious piety to EVENTS? What would be the excuse on par with "We're just asking the saints to intercede for us" in that case?
Will the blasphemy never end?
That shows that we do not venerate icons in themselves otherwise you have to accuse us for venerating traitors, demons etc.
If the shoe fits...
In Christ’s icons we see Him as He was, more or less, when he lived amongst us and in the human form that He will have when He will return,
How could you possibly know that?
That’s why although we translate His words in other languages we do not “translate” His images.
Most of the icons of Jesus I've seen in EO churches depict a white guy. (At least he doesn't usually have blue eyes, but still!)
Looks like you DO translate the images.
Christ, who gave the law to the Jews, did not say that He does not want us to make icons of Himself.
In the OT He said not to make images and worship and serve them at all, and He made no comment about that in the NT. I'd expect that commandment to go ahead and continue. Jesus never said that bestiality is wrong either, but He did tell us to worship God only and to cleave to our wives and not to others. There's an analogy there, I can feel it.
Why do you include Him and His humanity in all those things referred to as “anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”?
B/c He was in the form of a created thing - a man.
Besides, Christ does not dwell in the heaven that we see with our physical eyes where the commandment refers to but He is seated on the throne of God.
True, but His body is still physical.
where and when did Christ say that we shouldn’t make icons of the members of His body, His Saints?
Where and when did Christ say that we shouldn’t all wear Klingon costumes to church?
St John speaks with a presbyter in Revelation. Was that presbyter dead or alive?
That the Saints partake of Christ’s divine glory is everywhere in the NT, e.g. 2 Corinthians 3:18.
Now you just need to prove how that's relevant.