Taking the Bible literally!

[DarkNLovely]

This is from the RP thread AJBF posted! This ongoing thing did not belong in there! I have no intention of making any feel like their beliefs are being targeted so I will formalize the question! Does EOC take Bible literally? How does EOC deal with scriptures that do not appear to be literal? What about practices that seem to contradict scripture? How should we treat those who do not hold our views and their beliefs? And blah, blah, blah! You get the point! Lol!

[DarkNLovely]

Frankly, I love Christian art! Especially Byzantine and some of the modern stuff! I like it when they are softened a little bit. Baroque is good! Rembrandt rocks! I especially like the crucifixion and the Virgin Mary pics! I just don't think it's right to pray to them cuz it's not in the Bible! *shrugs* I think that is between people and God. I don't condemn, because we see, especially in OT times when people had some extra practices that God didn't fire and brimstone them for, but this is just why I and other non-RCC non-EOC don't do it. Where does iconography come from?

[Orthosdoxa]

Hi DNL,

I tried to answer you yesterday, but you didn't answer my post, so I'll try again here.

This seems to be one of your recurring themes: icons and staues are graven images

I ask you again to read this: http://philthompson.net/pages/faq/14.html#here I'll even post it.

I've heard that the Orthodox worship pictures. Isn't that against the Commandments? http://philthompson.net/images/pantocra.gifIcons (the word for "images" in both the Greek Old and New Testaments) are honored as reminders of the glory and presence of God, and venerated as such. Worship belongs only to God: the Father, Jesus Christ the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Just as we recognize that Man is made in the image of Christ, and so we show honor to one another - in the same way we acknowledge that God is represented in all His creation. Even further, we believe that, since Christ has entered creation and has become material, He has made matter itself holy; so material things are fit to be used to worship and depict Him.
Rather than attempting a natural or artistic depiction, icons point to the realities of the Kingdom of God. They are often referred to as "picture windows to Heaven". In other words, you will not only hear the Gospel in an Orthodox Church, you will see it. (And smell it, and touch and taste.) Icons are tools in our spiritual worship, and they bear witness to the sanctification of all creation and matter that occurred when Christ Jesus, the Son of God, took on human nature. Jesus in the Incarnation became the living icon of God in the flesh (John 10:30; 14:6-11).
Still, aren't images a violation of the Second Commandment?
It might be worth another look at the text: What God actually forbade was the making of graven images of anything in heaven or earth, for the purpose of worshipping them. Here's His actual command:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:4,5).
If this passage prohibits pictures of the incarnate Christ, or of angels or our heroes in the Faith, then at the same time we're tearing down all the Bible flannelgraphs in our Sunday School rooms, we really ought to destroy our photos of our families, snapshots of pets or the Grand Canyon, and the Statue of Liberty... Those are all images of things in the heaven or earth or water. In reality, of course, no one but the Muslims really believes that God meant to prohibit all images of anything in heaven or earth; it's the worshipping of images that He forbids.
Then why do Orthodox Christians kiss icons? Isn't that worshipping them?
To modern Americans, unaccustomed to expressing honor physically, it might look that way. But it's worth noting that this kind of veneration isn't unique to Orthodox Christianity: Many Orthodox Jews kiss the mezuzah on their doorpost as they pass it; they kiss their tallenin, too, as they put them on (Deuteronomy 6:8,9). Orthodox Jews kiss the Torah before reading it in the synagogue, as Jesus must have done. Orthodox Christians likewise kiss the book of the Gospels in reverence when we read it, since it is the premier verbal icon of Christ. (See this Jewish explanation (http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/kiss.html) of kissing things in devotion.)
In many cultures outside the Western world, there is nothing strange about bowing to greet someone; in Mediterranean and Slavic cultures it's common to greet friends and honored guests with a hug and kisses on both cheeks, as Scripture repeatedly says, "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26). It's worth speculating as to whether that greeting with a kiss came to Christianity from the hearty Mediterranean cultures, or whether those cultures learned it from the Christians. Either way, culture and spirituality affect one another deeply. Perhaps if we as a Western culture were more in tune with the middle-eastern sensibilities of the New Testament writers, we would have less aversion to honoring one another with kisses and bowing; and then we would be much less put off by the ways in which Christians show honor to other living Christians who are no longer living in the body.
We ought to distinguish between worship, which is for God alone, and honor, which we owe to kings (1 Peter 2:7), presbyters (1 Tim 5:17), wives (1 Peter 3:7), and indeed to all people (1 Peter 2:17), since all are in the image [icon] of Christ. We bow to honor one another and to honor our heroes in the Faith who are depicted in icons. We greet [I]all the saints (Hebrews 13:24) with a holy kiss ...including the saints who are represented in the Bible and in icons. After all, there isn't a great chasm fixed between the living and the dead. That gulf lies between the righteous and the wicked (Luke 16:26), not between us and the living Christians who are "absent from the body and present with the Lord." Christ doesn't have two Bodies, one on earth and one in heaven; His Body the Church is one, and includes both us who are in the body and the "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1).
But there weren't any images in the Tabernacle or the Temple.
Sure there were! Anyone who's read much of the Old Testament will probably recognize the phrase "golden calf". Aaron set up a golden calf and told Israel "This is your God who brought you out of Egypt!" In later generations, Israel's default design for an idol was a bull or calf. This was an image that had strong resonance for them - this is what a god "looked like" to their religious sensibilities. (For comparison, see all the Assyrian and Babylonian images of "cherubim" i.e. human-headed, winged bulls.) Prophets cried out against the worship of the golden calves; God pronounced judgments on those who set up these images for worship.
So what would you say if I told you these images were set up in the Temple - with God's approval?
It may be startling (to say the least) to read in 1 Kings 7:25 that the brazen sea - the huge 15-foot diameter basin in the courts of the Temple - was made with graven images of twelve bulls prominently displayed. This should tell us, if nothing else, that God is not displeased by the presence of pictorial representations in holy places. Even when, as in this case, they are graven images identical to those the Israelites periodically worshipped!
Of course those weren't the only graven images in the Temple. You'll also find:

Two fifteen-foot-tall cherubim in the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:23-28)
All the Temple's inside walls were covered with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. (1 Kings 6:29)
The doors of the sanctuary and of the inner sanctuary were carved gold-overlaid images of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers (1 Kings 6:32,34)
On the Temple carts, images of bulls and lions. (1 Kings 7:29,36)
and of course the two cherubs on top of the Ark itself! God sees the difference between graven images in general, and graven images to which one gives worship. Hopefully we can too.
In fact, God has commissioned a number of icons. He commanded Moses to display an icon in Numbers 21:8,9 - God healed the Israelites from snakebite when they looked to the icon of the snake. It was not until a later generation, when the people had named this icon Nehushtan and worshipped it as a god, that it was necessary to destroy it (2 Kings 18:4). At another time, God specifically commanded Ezekiel to paint an icon of the city of Jerusalem and to treat the icon as a symbol of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1ff).
We certainly can't theorize that images are foreign to Biblical prayer and piety. Modern iconoclasm was not a feature of ancient Judaism, nor are images automatically idols. (Which is not to say that abuses never occur, as with the divinely-appointed icon that later became the idol Nehushtan.)
I've visited Jewish synagogues, and I know for a fact that they don't display images like the ones in an Orthodox Church. Who changed?
The Jews did. Certainly modern synagogues don't display images as an Orthodox Church building does. But New Testament-era Jews had no qualms about lavishly decorating their synagogues with images of biblical figures. When the second-century synagogue at Dura Europos (http://philthompson.net/icons/duraeuropos.html) in modern Syria was unearthed, the wall-paintings were found in excellent condition. Here are thumbnail photos of the back wall and the tabernacle area of the synagogue
(Click below for larger view!) http://philthompson.net/images/smsyn1.gif (http://philthompson.net/pages/icons/duraeuropos.html) http://philthompson.net/images/smsyn2.jpg (http://philthompson.net/pages/icons/duraeuropos.html) Modern Jewish practice notwithstanding, it's entirely appropriate to display representations of things heavenly or earthly, at home or in the sanctuary. It's not the presence of images that's wrong; what God rightly forbids is the worship of images. And the Orthodox Church, while using icons as tools in prayer, has always vigorously condemned idolatry in all forms. While it may look like we're worshipping icons, trust us: We know the difference.
***********************************************************************

Your other recurring theme is, "it isn't in the Bible". As Jacob keeps asking you, where did you the Bible come from? What gives it it's authority?


Since the Bible was not compiled in its current form until roughly 400 AD, and many books at that time were thrown out, who had the authority to do that? And more importantly, what did those people believe?

[nutroll]

Does EOC take Bible literally?

I would say that the Orthodox Church does not take the Bible literally, but only because the word literally has been distorted to the point that this would give a false impression. We don't use proof-texting-- meaning that we don't think that individual passages can be used to uphold a doctrine unless it is taken in the greater context of all of scripture, and the specific context of that book of the Bible. We don't believe in Biblical Inerrancy, though we do believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

How does EOC deal with scriptures that do not appear to be literal?

To whom? To be honest, it doesn't really matter to us if others think that we are interpreting scripture wrong. We don't believe that to be the case. But to answer your question, when something appears to go against scripture to a Protestant or Catholic, it is very likely because they are not looking at the relevant passages. It is easy to find arguments from scripture that would seem to prove someone wrong, but one needs to examine all of scripture to see whether that argument is valid.

What about practices that seem to contradict scripture?

Same question as before. What are the passages, and what else is in scripture that would make that argument invalid.

How should we treat those who do not hold our views and their beliefs? And blah, blah, blah! You get the point! Lol!

With the love of Christ hopefully.

The Orthodox Church does not believe that the Church ought to come from the Bible. The reason we don't believe this is that the Church predates the Bible. When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, none of the NT books had yet been written, and the OT was not completely agreed upon at that point. The Church comes from God. Because the Bible also comes from God, there ought to be no disagreement between the Bible and the Church, but to say that everything must come out of the Bible would be wrong. So where a practice does not come out of the Bible, that does not mean that it is not from God. It also does not mean that that practice is not Biblical. Everything that the Church has taught, the writings of the Fathers, they are all scriptural. They all have a scriptural basis, they are all tested against the Scriptures. The Bible is quoted at great length in all the writings of the Church.

[nutroll]

Frankly, I love Christian art! Especially Byzantine and some of the modern stuff! I like it when they are softened a little bit. Baroque is good! Rembrandt rocks! I especially like the crucifixion and the Virgin Mary pics! I just don't think it's right to pray to them cuz it's not in the Bible! *shrugs* I think that is between people and God. I don't condemn, because we see, especially in OT times when people had some extra practices that God didn't fire and brimstone them for, but this is just why I and other non-RCC non-EOC don't do it. Where does iconography come from?

First of all, Orthodox Christians DO NOT pray to icons. We do not worship them. The charge of idolatry presumes that we do, and we absolutely, positively, do not. We pray in front of icons, but not to them. Iconography comes from the Incarnation of Christ. God became flesh. God became depictable in the person of Jesus Christ. The second commandment only prohibited images because God had never been seen. As Orthosdoxa pointed out, it would be just as wrong according to a literalistic interpretation of Exodus 20 to have any images of anything for any reason.

It is difficult to say exactly how far back iconography goes because there was a period of iconoclasm in the 8th century during which many icons were destroyed. We have traditions that St. Luke painted the first icons of the Theotokos during her lifetime. We also have a tradition that Christ himself made the first icon by imprinting his likeness on a cloth. However, both of these are extrabiblical stories, and may not convince skeptics. But regardless of when and where the actual practice of iconography arose, the theology behind it is Biblical, and Incarnational. Early churches probably had very little imagery as it was a church under persecution. But as that persecution lessened, iconography began to flourish.

[Shubunkin]

I have known a lot of Christians that had a copy of the painting of Christ in their homes. Even the Lutheran church we once attended had a very large one in the hall. They even had a crucifix with Jesus on it in the narthex. Christians seem to say it's okay for them to have them, but kissing it.... yahhh! :P

Lutherans have also been known to genuflect and cross themselves. :)

[Protoevangel]

We don't believe in Biblical Inerrancy...
I would think you would need to qualify this statement similarly to how you qualified your statement that "the Orthodox Church does not take the Bible literally," "but only because the word [I]has been distorted to the point that this would give a false impression." Because with all of my (limited) reading of the Fathers, I have yet to find one hint that there is, or may be, error in the Holy Scriptures. Not even among the most allegorical writers, do I see any such hint.

Certainly we do not believe in Biblical Inerrancy in the same way as modern fundamentalists do, but we also would never presuppose error upon the Holy Scriptures, either.

So, in the proper context of the word, the Orthodox do embrace the literal sense of Holy Scripture, wherein the literal is intended by the text. This is just as we embrace the poetic, allegorical, prophetic, and apocalyptic, where proper to do so. In fact much of Holy Scripture can be properly taken in an allegorical sense, without destroying the literal sense. In the same way, in the proper context of the word, the Orthodox do uphold Holy Scripture to be absolutely inerrant regarding all that which they intend to address.

[Thekla]

Yes, we do take the Bible literally.
There are, one could say, two "layers of meaning" in the scriptures: the plain (face) and the deeper (spiritual). We take both "layers" literally.

For example, per idolatry. Refer back to the 10 Commandments. They are divided into relationship with God and man; Christ summarizes them as 2. The first group (on relationship with God) first state that God is the true God. The remaining deal with remaining true to God; they are examples of adultery. Idolatry is paganism; putting into action the belief that anything other than God is (a) god. This is illustrated in the above article. It is said that satan introduced paganism - the worship of anything other than God (self, family, money, status etc). In this sense, no image is needed to worship an idol. The Jews were called out of and continued to live side by side with pagans. The struggle was to lose their previos pagan influences. In modern terms, paganism is secularism. The deeper meaning of idolatry is adultery.

All Christians need to struggle against adultery (idolatry). It is unwise to think that idolatry is absent when no images are used.
It is (sorry) simplistic to think that where images are used, they must be idols. Though, concerning the second possibility, I do respect the Amish for showing integrity; believing that images are idols, they have no pictures, just decorations. (This is why they refuse to be photographed, drawn, etc).

[xristos.anesti]

We just do what the fathers did.

(At least we are praying to God to be merciful to us so that we may do what the fathers did)

Christ, Church - one body with many limbs - nothing added and nothing deleted - fullness of history, fullness of live, fullness of struggle -

One God, One faith, One life -

Bible is the inerrant word of God - inerrant for the Church explains what the word speaks - it is through the explanation of the Holy Spirit through the Church that we receive inerrant messages of the Patriarchs, Judges, Kings, Prophets and Apostles - the message of Logos - not the Bible of itself - but Bible of the Church - for only those who wrote know what they meant and what they received and what they passed on -

outside the Church - the Bible is the most erroneous book in the world -




We just do what the fathers did - nothing added nothing taken away - the Tradition.

[Theophorus]

We take the scriptures literally. That's why we baptize and partake of the body and blood of Christ.

[TrueHope]

Orthosdoxa



WOW! Thanks! That post really aided me in many of my own questions. I have asked for Truth, and I am getting plenty of similar answers in many different areas! This just helped confirm it!!!! :thumbsup:

[Orthosdoxa]

Hooray, TrueHope! Be sure to check out the rest of Phil Thompson's site, too - his whole faq is just fabulous, along with other articles on there that he's written or borrowed from other writers. It was probably THE turning point place in my own journey.

[DarkNLovely]

Hi DNL,

I tried to answer you yesterday, but you didn't answer my post, so I'll try again here.

This seems to be one of your recurring themes:

I ask you again to read this: http://philthompson.net/pages/faq/14.html#here I'll even post it.

I've heard that the Orthodox worship pictures. Isn't that against the Commandments? http://philthompson.net/images/pantocra.gifIcons (the word for "images" in both the Greek Old and New Testaments) are honored as reminders of the glory and presence of God, and venerated as such. Worship belongs only to God: the Father, Jesus Christ the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Just as we recognize that Man is made in the image of Christ, and so we show honor to one another - in the same way we acknowledge that God is represented in all His creation. Even further, we believe that, since Christ has entered creation and has become material, He has made matter itself holy; so material things are fit to be used to worship and depict Him.
Rather than attempting a natural or artistic depiction, icons point to the realities of the Kingdom of God. They are often referred to as "picture windows to Heaven". In other words, you will not only hear the Gospel in an Orthodox Church, you will see it. (And smell it, and touch and taste.) Icons are tools in our spiritual worship, and they bear witness to the sanctification of all creation and matter that occurred when Christ Jesus, the Son of God, took on human nature. Jesus in the Incarnation became the living icon of God in the flesh (John 10:30; 14:6-11).
Still, aren't images a violation of the Second Commandment?
It might be worth another look at the text: What God actually forbade was the making of graven images of anything in heaven or earth, for the purpose of worshipping them. Here's His actual command:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:4,5).
If this passage prohibits pictures of the incarnate Christ, or of angels or our heroes in the Faith, then at the same time we're tearing down all the Bible flannelgraphs in our Sunday School rooms, we really ought to destroy our photos of our families, snapshots of pets or the Grand Canyon, and the Statue of Liberty... Those are all images of things in the heaven or earth or water. In reality, of course, no one but the Muslims really believes that God meant to prohibit all images of anything in heaven or earth; it's the worshipping of images that He forbids.
Then why do Orthodox Christians kiss icons? Isn't that worshipping them?
To modern Americans, unaccustomed to expressing honor physically, it might look that way. But it's worth noting that this kind of veneration isn't unique to Orthodox Christianity: Many Orthodox Jews kiss the mezuzah on their doorpost as they pass it; they kiss their tallenin, too, as they put them on (Deuteronomy 6:8,9). Orthodox Jews kiss the Torah before reading it in the synagogue, as Jesus must have done. Orthodox Christians likewise kiss the book of the Gospels in reverence when we read it, since it is the premier verbal icon of Christ. (See this Jewish explanation (http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/kiss.html) of kissing things in devotion.)
In many cultures outside the Western world, there is nothing strange about bowing to greet someone; in Mediterranean and Slavic cultures it's common to greet friends and honored guests with a hug and kisses on both cheeks, as Scripture repeatedly says, "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26). It's worth speculating as to whether that greeting with a kiss came to Christianity from the hearty Mediterranean cultures, or whether those cultures learned it from the Christians. Either way, culture and spirituality affect one another deeply. Perhaps if we as a Western culture were more in tune with the middle-eastern sensibilities of the New Testament writers, we would have less aversion to honoring one another with kisses and bowing; and then we would be much less put off by the ways in which Christians show honor to other living Christians who are no longer living in the body.
We ought to distinguish between worship, which is for God alone, and honor, which we owe to kings (1 Peter 2:7), presbyters (1 Tim 5:17), wives (1 Peter 3:7), and indeed to all people (1 Peter 2:17), since all are in the image [icon] of Christ. We bow to honor one another and to honor our heroes in the Faith who are depicted in icons. We greet [I]all the saints (Hebrews 13:24) with a holy kiss ...including the saints who are represented in the Bible and in icons. After all, there isn't a great chasm fixed between the living and the dead. That gulf lies between the righteous and the wicked (Luke 16:26), not between us and the living Christians who are "absent from the body and present with the Lord." Christ doesn't have two Bodies, one on earth and one in heaven; His Body the Church is one, and includes both us who are in the body and the "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1).
But there weren't any images in the Tabernacle or the Temple.
Sure there were! Anyone who's read much of the Old Testament will probably recognize the phrase "golden calf". Aaron set up a golden calf and told Israel "This is your God who brought you out of Egypt!" In later generations, Israel's default design for an idol was a bull or calf. This was an image that had strong resonance for them - this is what a god "looked like" to their religious sensibilities. (For comparison, see all the Assyrian and Babylonian images of "cherubim" i.e. human-headed, winged bulls.) Prophets cried out against the worship of the golden calves; God pronounced judgments on those who set up these images for worship.
So what would you say if I told you these images were set up in the Temple - with God's approval?
It may be startling (to say the least) to read in 1 Kings 7:25 that the brazen sea - the huge 15-foot diameter basin in the courts of the Temple - was made with graven images of twelve bulls prominently displayed. This should tell us, if nothing else, that God is not displeased by the presence of pictorial representations in holy places. Even when, as in this case, they are graven images identical to those the Israelites periodically worshipped!
Of course those weren't the only graven images in the Temple. You'll also find:

Two fifteen-foot-tall cherubim in the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:23-28)
All the Temple's inside walls were covered with carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. (1 Kings 6:29)
The doors of the sanctuary and of the inner sanctuary were carved gold-overlaid images of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers (1 Kings 6:32,34)
On the Temple carts, images of bulls and lions. (1 Kings 7:29,36)
and of course the two cherubs on top of the Ark itself! God sees the difference between graven images in general, and graven images to which one gives worship. Hopefully we can too.
In fact, God has commissioned a number of icons. He commanded Moses to display an icon in Numbers 21:8,9 - God healed the Israelites from snakebite when they looked to the icon of the snake. It was not until a later generation, when the people had named this icon Nehushtan and worshipped it as a god, that it was necessary to destroy it (2 Kings 18:4). At another time, God specifically commanded Ezekiel to paint an icon of the city of Jerusalem and to treat the icon as a symbol of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1ff).
We certainly can't theorize that images are foreign to Biblical prayer and piety. Modern iconoclasm was not a feature of ancient Judaism, nor are images automatically idols. (Which is not to say that abuses never occur, as with the divinely-appointed icon that later became the idol Nehushtan.)
I've visited Jewish synagogues, and I know for a fact that they don't display images like the ones in an Orthodox Church. Who changed?
The Jews did. Certainly modern synagogues don't display images as an Orthodox Church building does. But New Testament-era Jews had no qualms about lavishly decorating their synagogues with images of biblical figures. When the second-century synagogue at Dura Europos (http://philthompson.net/icons/duraeuropos.html) in modern Syria was unearthed, the wall-paintings were found in excellent condition. Here are thumbnail photos of the back wall and the tabernacle area of the synagogue
(Click below for larger view!) http://philthompson.net/images/smsyn1.gif (http://philthompson.net/pages/icons/duraeuropos.html) http://philthompson.net/images/smsyn2.jpg (http://philthompson.net/pages/icons/duraeuropos.html) Modern Jewish practice notwithstanding, it's entirely appropriate to display representations of things heavenly or earthly, at home or in the sanctuary. It's not the presence of images that's wrong; what God rightly forbids is the worship of images. And the Orthodox Church, while using icons as tools in prayer, has always vigorously condemned idolatry in all forms. While it may look like we're worshipping icons, trust us: We know the difference.
***********************************************************************

Your other recurring theme is, "it isn't in the Bible". As Jacob keeps asking you, where did you the Bible come from? What gives it it's authority?


Since the Bible was not compiled in its current form until roughly 400 AD, and many books at that time were thrown out, who had the authority to do that? And more importantly, what did those people believe?

Sorry about that, Orthosdoxa! With all the posting I skipped yours! I wasn't iggin' you! I'll read this one and give ya some feed back, k? Thank you!!!!