Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?

---

"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?

---

Whatever you want to call it.

---

It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.

---

You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.

---

All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.

I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.

---

I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.

---

We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.

---

Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."

---

"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"

And Circular Sam goes on.....

---

A better translation is "those who do not."

---

Yep this was in reference directly to iconoclasts. Neither Orthodoxy or RC claim refusal to venerate icons equals damnation lol

It's apparently acceptable for an ecumenical council to anathematize Arians for denying Christ's divinity, for them to establish the Holy Trinity because many Christians were denying Christ's divinity…but somehow illegitimate to anathematize iconoclasts for denying the visible reality of the Incarnation.

---

For God's sake, man. What is wrong with you guys?

• The early church was universally iconoclastic.
• There was a positive requirement to venerate icons upon pain of anathema.
• An anathema was defined as a "separation from God" and being "expelled from God's kingdom"

There really has to be something mentally wrong with you guys. Do you really think that because Jesus came in the flesh, that it means bowing and praying to or through images of departed people is okay, and that not doing so is a "denial of the Incarnation"?

My God.

---

They're alive in Christ.

If Christians on earth can ask one another for prayer, and saints in heaven are alive, righteous, aware, and shown presenting prayers to God, then asking for their intercession follows directly from Scripture.

James 5:16 "Pray for one another… the prayer of a righteous man avails much."

Scripture explicitly teaches that the prayers of the righteous are more effective and that God does not hear prayers under certain conditions. There's a TON of verses showing this.

---

You're dodging my comment. We know why. The question is, why can't you just be honest with us as well as with yourself?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?

---

"Possible" in what world? The world of reality, or the world of Roman Catholic double talk?

---

Whatever you want to call it.

---

It's what all rational people who aren't brainwashed call it. If you actually had a substantive argument against there being a positive requirement to the anathema, we'd all have heard it by now.

---

You have heard it, but you weren't listening. I'm trying to get you to slow down and think.

---

All I've heard is denial of objective fact and non-arguments.

I'm waiting for you to speed up, and catch up to the rest of us in the rational world. Like I said, if you had an interpretation of the anathema that you think debunks the positive requirement, we'd have heard it by now. But you're the one slowing things down.

---

I'm sure you'd just dismiss it as "double talk." Do a little research. It's good for you.

---

We're still waiting. Why are you slowing things down? Put up or shut up.

---

Here's a hint: "The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm...not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand."

---

"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!"

And Circular Sam goes on.....

---

A better translation is "those who do not."

---

Which would include those who "struggle, hesitate, or don't understand" because it's a positive requirement, right?

---

Not necessarily.

---

It's necessarily a positive requirement. I don't expect someone as intellectually dishonest as you to acknowledge that.

---

Sigh.

Sam Lowry"Anyone who does not kiss the holy and venerable icons - ANATHEMA!" said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And Circular Sam goes on.....

---

A better translation is "those who do not."

---

Which would include those who "struggle, hesitate, or don't understand" because it's a positive requirement, right?

---

Not necessarily.

---

It's necessarily a positive requirement. I don't expect someone as intellectually dishonest as you to acknowledge that.

---

Sigh.

---

Ohhhhh, you "sigh"-ed, well why didn't you put it that way before? NOW we all get it, you must be absolutely right!

Like I said, if you actually could substantiate your argument that it's NOT a positive requirement for icon veneration, we'd heard it by now instead of watch you play your silly games. If you know you can't argue it, why are you wasting forum time and space?

Richard Price, a Roman Catholic priest and Professor Emeritus of Christian History:

"The iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct. The iconophile view of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history." The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 43.

Price's statement here reflects the general consensus of church historians. The consensus of historians is also that icon veneration originated in either the 6th or 7th century. So, we have an ecumenical council that is considered infallible by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which:

• claimed that icon veneration originated from the apostles, which is a denial of church history;
• anathematized to Hell the universal and constant belief of the early church

So can Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy legitimately claim that they are the one, true, unchanged, and apostolic faith?? The answer is clearly no. My appeal to the forum is simply this: can we get an honest Roman Catholic (like Richard Price above) and/or Orthodox Christian to acknowledge this, here in these forums? Is there not ONE?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Richard Price, a Roman Catholic priest and Professor Emeritus of Christian History:

"The iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct. The iconophile view of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history." The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 43.

Price's statement here reflects the general consensus of church historians. The consensus of historians is also that icon veneration originated in either the 6th or 7th century. So, we have an ecumenical council that is considered infallible by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which:

• claimed that icon veneration originated from the apostles, which is a denial of church history;
• anathematized to Hell the universal and constant belief of the early church

So can Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy legitimately claim that they are the one, true, unchanged, and apostolic faith?? The answer is clearly no. My appeal to the forum is simply this: can we get an honest Roman Catholic (like Richard Price above) and/or Orthodox Christian to acknowledge this, here in these forums? Is there not ONE?

---

You've made a desert and called it victory.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Richard Price, a Roman Catholic priest and Professor Emeritus of Christian History:

"The iconoclast claim that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct. The iconophile view of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history." The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 43.

Price's statement here reflects the general consensus of church historians. The consensus of historians is also that icon veneration originated in either the 6th or 7th century. So, we have an ecumenical council that is considered infallible by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which:

• claimed that icon veneration originated from the apostles, which is a denial of church history;
• anathematized to Hell the universal and constant belief of the early church

So can Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy legitimately claim that they are the one, true, unchanged, and apostolic faith?? The answer is clearly no. My appeal to the forum is simply this: can we get an honest Roman Catholic (like Richard Price above) and/or Orthodox Christian to acknowledge this, here in these forums? Is there not ONE?

---

You've made a desert and called it victory.

---

It was facts, history, and logic that made the desert. Even Calgacus would agree.

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

---

Once could assert, or one could substantiate.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

---

Once could assert, or one could substantiate.

---

Like I said, if you're interested in Price's argument, take a look at more than one paragraph. You may not like it, but he'll explain it better than I can.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

---

Once could assert, or one could substantiate.

---

Like I said, if you're interested in Price's argument, take a look at more than one paragraph. You may not like it, but he'll explain it better than I can.

---

Serious question for you and for all Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians: if you have to troll your way through your defense of the apostolicity and infallibility of your church.... then can you really have the truth?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

---

Once could assert, or one could substantiate.

---

Like I said, if you're interested in Price's argument, take a look at more than one paragraph. You may not like it, but he'll explain it better than I can.

---

Serious question for you and for all Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians: if you have to troll your way through your defense of the apostolicity and infallibility of your church.... then can you really have the truth?

---

I can't force you to think. At best I can hope to inspire some curiosity. If I have to wave the spoon and make the train go "choo-choo!" before you'll take a bite, can the food really be any good? There's only one way to find out.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

---

Once could assert, or one could substantiate.

---

Like I said, if you're interested in Price's argument, take a look at more than one paragraph. You may not like it, but he'll explain it better than I can.

---

Serious question for you and for all Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians: if you have to troll your way through your defense of the apostolicity and infallibility of your church.... then can you really have the truth?

---

I can't force you to think. At best I can hope to inspire some curiosity. If I have to wave the spoon and make the train go "choo-choo!" before you'll take a bite, can the food really be any good? There's only one way to find out.

---

It's clear who's the one doing the real thinking here.

The only curiosity that has been piqued is in regards to how you can actually feel good in your beliefs, when they're clearly at odds with historical fact and basic reasoning, and how the only way you can defend them is through defense mechanisms and assertions with no substantiation. Do you honestly think that people are not seeing how you're constantly balking? And that seems to be the entirety of your church's defense here, and sadly, it's been an empty vessel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

---

Once could assert, or one could substantiate.

---

Like I said, if you're interested in Price's argument, take a look at more than one paragraph. You may not like it, but he'll explain it better than I can.

---

Serious question for you and for all Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians: if you have to troll your way through your defense of the apostolicity and infallibility of your church.... then can you really have the truth?

---

I can't force you to think. At best I can hope to inspire some curiosity. If I have to wave the spoon and make the train go "choo-choo!" before you'll take a bite, can the food really be any good? There's only one way to find out.

---

The only curiosity that has been piqued is in regards to how you can actually feel good in your beliefs, when they're clearly at odds with historical fact and basic reasoning

---

Well, why didn't you just say so?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd suggest a closer look at what Price has to say. He would agree with me that icon veneration was never universally rejected. On the contrary, he considers it a "true development" of early church practice.

---

Rrriiiight. You sure this isn't one of your "I think so" moments?

And a "development" sure doesn't sound like it can be apostolic, can it?

---

One could speculate, or one could learn.

---

Once could assert, or one could substantiate.

---

Like I said, if you're interested in Price's argument, take a look at more than one paragraph. You may not like it, but he'll explain it better than I can.

---

Serious question for you and for all Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians: if you have to troll your way through your defense of the apostolicity and infallibility of your church.... then can you really have the truth?

---

I can't force you to think. At best I can hope to inspire some curiosity. If I have to wave the spoon and make the train go "choo-choo!" before you'll take a bite, can the food really be any good? There's only one way to find out.

---

The only curiosity that has been piqued is in regards to how you can actually feel good in your beliefs, when they're clearly at odds with historical fact and basic reasoning

---

Well, why didn't you just say so?

---

I've shown so.

I think you've pretty much run out of whatever smidgeon of credibility you had.

Great thoughtful video challenging some tenets of the "Protestant" (depending which one you so choose) faith. Worth a listen for anyone objective and wanting to be as close to God as possible in this temporal walk



Jesus left us a church not a book