Fr. Stephen DeYoung - John 1 & Icons in the Early Church Fathers 

I've met Fr. Stephen in person and you are correct. He is also a super nice man.

Thanks for listening!

You also should look into the recent publication on Pseudo-Dionysius, if legit, it would drastically change our view on images in early Christianity as well.

German excavations at Ctesiphon also show icons/reliefs of saints in church of the East churches from 4th-5th century.

Would you be so kind as to post a link here as well? I'd be very interested in this! Thanks!

Yes pls share

Yep I'm interested as well, but YT will probably shadowban the post with a link in it.

Stick around for more

Thanks for listening!

Thanks for listening!

Amen.

"Proof testing my thinking in public" is a good way of describing the entire purpose for this channel

This is such a hard concept to grasp for us prots. In a way it sounds like it's just arguing for our position, especially when it comes to St. Maximos the Confessor, whom the church initially persecuted, then later canonized. On the other hand, there's the catholic position which is clearly the opposite of the protestant position, and you have Pope Martin I who even sheltered and was persecuted with St. Maximos. Half the time the EO argument sounds like the end point of it is Protestantism (there's know way to see or know something is infallible), and the other half of the time it sounds like the endpoint is some sort of divine infallibility similar to the papacy (but maybe more wrapped up in canons of councils?).

@@etheretherether Fair point. Of course, in our world, the two basic Christian poles are Protestantism & Catholicism. It’s natural to try to place Christian Orthodoxy in a fixed place in relation to them. It can’t be so placed. It just doesn’t ask the same questions. So, its answers are going to seem equivocating or just off the mark. Start with Sin, work through the Fall, consider Justification and the Gospel, and end up at Salvation through Theosis. None of it is going to track with medieval Catholicism or magesterial Protestantism. Totally different? No. Yes. !!

@@etheretheretherThe example of St. Maximos is proof of the continued influence of the Holy Spirit on the Body of Christ. Orthodox aren’t infallible just like every other human member of this fallen world.. Orthodoxy is infallible, even if it’s eventual. When members or a person in the Body of Christ err the error does not survive. Luther’s, Calvin’s and Papal errors do survive as there is no mechanism to reverse them. This idea in fact principle is defined in Scripture and described as being pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Look at an opposing example with Origen. He was a rock star for centuries until he was excommunicated posthumously and declared a heretical. Is the Orthodox Church Perfect? No. Is Orthodoxy True? Yes, demonstrates just as Fr. de Young explains. Kalo Pascha.

Thanks Nathan

100%

Transfigured Life and Transfigured colab when?

@@transfigured3673 That would be amazing! Let's do it! 🔥🔥

@@transfigured3673 That would be fun! Let's do it! 🔥🔥

Please reach me at transfiguredchannel@gmail.com . Looking forward to it!

Hope it's worth the investment

Thanks Shari. Also, I am still really touched by the McDonald sermon you posted.

@@transfigured3673 🫂

Thanks for listening!

Just want to point out that he is still referred to as "Saint Clement of Alexandria" in Eastern Orthodox writings and Roman Catholic writings. He is no longer venerated, and his feast day was removed from the Roman calendar. What the line between these means is unclear to me.

Look forward to your thoughts and comments as always

Same. 👊🏼

Me too! I think my churches were just lower tech since Sam and I are the same age I think

Glad to hear that Bill. Thanks for sharing.

Glad you enjoyed it!

makes sense to me

Sorry if this sounds irreverent, but John the Baptist is like the opening act while Jesus is the main event.

Interesting

Servetus held a very high view of the eucharist, although he had plenty of criticism for Catholic Transubstantiation and for Lutheran consubstantiation, but his sharpest criticism was for Zwinglian memorialism. Curiously, I think Servetus's view is closest to the Calvinist view. It's entirely possible that this is not an accident and that Calvin or Servetus might have influenced each other. Servetus's view is basically that once we have been baptized (as an adult! not a child) we receive our new inner man which is based on the type of Jesus. When we partake of the eucharist our outer man is nourished by the bread and our inner man is nourished by the body of Christ partaken of spiritually. Same for the wine/blood. He recommends daily communion for Christians after the phrase "give us this day our daily bread". Some quotes from Servetus regarding the tree of life. "Through faith in Christ we have already been given eternal life, and in having this as a sure and heavenly possession, we are born again and saved through our faith in Christ if we continue nourishing ourselves with the tree of life, as we shall say later." "That the sin within us, just as in Adam, is the disordered taste of unripe fruit is made clear through the mystery of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil,” for the tree foreshadowed Christ. Through Christ the wood of knowledge was to be joined with the wood of life just as he recapitulates everything else. Christ alone has been allowed to give men the true “knowledge of good and evil” through his holy spirit in baptism just as in the wood of life, that is, in his own body during the lord’s supper." "After all, heavenly nourishment is owed to the one born of heaven so that by its use he may live in eternity. Just as the immortality of Adam was preserved by the tree of life, so this new type of food maintains the new man in his immortality." PS: If you want access to Servetus's works, email me at transfiguredchannel@gmail.com

​@@transfigured3673 That's really interesting. I appreciate that. I agree with everything Servetus says in those quotes, except I'm a bit uncertain by what he means in the last sentence in the second quote. When he mentions "his own body," do you think he's referring to the physical bread used in the ritual or the spiritual connection among the saints, aka the body of saints?

You are correct. But we have an "ongoing mystical ritual" anyway, mainly because of the teachings of the early church fathers on the subject, even going back to Paul himself, in 1 Cor 11: *27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.* *33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another- 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home-so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.* On one hand, Paul is talking about an _actual meal_ , but it's obvious that there is a very real, mystical element to it even in Paul's time. But the fact of its mysticism does not negate your argument that it symbolizes salvation, as it's blatantly obvious that was the purpose of it from Day One. Catholics and Orthodox going into hysterics about communion being called symbolic in nature never made any sense to me. They entire Catholic mass is super symbolic in every way imaginable, and _that's not a bad thing._ Jesus was _constantly and intentionally speaking symbolically._ There are only a few instances where there's no need of unpacking the symbols to get to the core of his teaching. To take the symbols as being literal is the worst kind of theology. The symbolism of the Eucharist goes backwards as much as it moves forward. The manna of the desert was the downpayment: an actual, historic food source that is loaded with symbolic content. What's the moral of the story? Just as God gave you _actual food_ in the desert to feast upon, so now God is giving you His Son to _feast upon_. But is the bread and wine the feast he's referring to? It can't be, as we are the ones baking the bread and making the wine, we are providing the feast, not God. So what is Jesus giving us from heaven that we cannot possibly reproduce on our own? Salvation itself. So by _feasting on the Son of God,_ we are to cling to his power of healing, restoration and salvation, amongst all the other mystical, but very essential services he provides us. Eating the bread and wine are symbols of how we are to "eat" the promises and teachings of Jesus. We are to internalize those promises for ourselves, and actually _embody_ them. I've never really had any problems understanding this, it always seemed very straight-forward. And yet.....

@@Pseudo_Boethius I agree with the idea that Paul is referring to a real supper meal that includes more than just bread and wine as indicated by Jesus's statement at the Passover, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me." What could they be dipping their bread into? Most likely a bowl of bean stew. Is bean stew typically found in church services today?... Supper is not only intended to facilitate communion (with all its psychological, emotional, and spiritual support components) but also to satisfy your hunger so that it does not detract from your worship. Typically, people today eat before attending church, which is acceptable according to Paul. However, if that is the case, then what is the significance of a modern eucharistic ritual? Well, it is because many Christians today believe there is a salvific aspect to it, and I believe that notion is erroneous and ventures into idolatry. For this reason I don't agree with the association of an actual supper meal with ritual, let alone any implied "mysticism" in the act of injesting food or drink. The true mystical aspect lies in the gathering of two or three regenerated Christians. This distinction is crucial, as one view suggests that salvation (or sanctification) is achieved through a mere symbolic act, while the other highlights the importance of community support for those who are spiritually weak or new to the faith. In essence, coming together as a community is essential for those who have not yet received the Holy Spirit and have recently been baptized in the name of Jesus alone. The unity of two or three individuals who possess the Holy Spirit can greatly benefit those who are still on their journey towards strengthening their faith until it reaches a level deemed suitable for salvation. This is what I believe the eucharist was meant and still is meant to function as. "Do this is remembrance of me".

@@EmJay2022 -- Thank you so much for your detailed reply. *"This is what I believe the eucharist was meant and still is meant to function as. "Do this is remembrance of me"."* In that statement, we have complete, total agreement. We do it to remember _the story._ However, there really is a mystical element to it, but that's a discussion for another day. It's not essential that anyone believe that, with the notable exception of those who are mystics. But there is real, honest-to-goodness evidence for the mystical aspect that should not be easily dismissed. But that's far too long and too complex a point to argue here. *"Typically, people today eat before attending church, which is acceptable according to Paul. However, if that is the case, then what is the significance of a modern eucharistic ritual? Well, it is because many Christians today believe there is a salvific aspect to it, and I believe that notion is erroneous and ventures into idolatry."* Again, we have complete, total agreement...to an extent. You are generally correct: religious observances can easily become idols unto themselves, no matter how noble the intentions. Does communion "save" you? Honestly, there are no religious observances _at all_ that save you, not communion, not baptism, not church attendance, not bible studies. Spiritual disciplines, can certainly help you _achieve salvation,_ but are not salvific in themselves. My entire spiritual quest the past ten or more years has been simply this: what is truly _essential_ for salvation, and what's not? That's a very rich topic, that I won't get into here, but it's endlessly fascinating. Let's just say that my ideas about what is essential for salvation would make me a heretic amongst most Protestants. You are right: we who are more mature are called to be the scaffolding for the new believers, and the best way to be a Christian and learn of Christianity, no matter how imperfectly, is to be around other Christians. For all the trash talking we do about the evangelicals and charismatics, I must grudgingly admit that they, at the very least, take that aspect of the faith very seriously--which is why their numbers hold stable, and even grow, as the old-line denominations sink under the waves of history. Whether they do it to our "satisfaction" or not is besides the point, they, at the very least, understand how crucially important fellowship is, and their projects continue to grow because of it.

ha I just referenced JDW in a different comment, and see Luke talks about him here too. Would you agree that wrt iconography their paradigms (development vs restoration) converge at the same spot for entirely different reasons, or is that an inaccurate thing to say?

perpetually

Sorry, I forgot how simple the trinity is

@@transfigured3673 it is a bit easier to explain than your alchemy on John Chapter 1.

Hank bringing the hankenspice!

hankenspice. lol

​​@@transfigured3673 I really hope that you have a discussion or debate with Anthony rogers about the trinity that will be fruitful to watch

Michael Servetus, the first major Unitarian in the protestant era, says very similar things. Says that the eucharist is eating the fruit from the tree of life which is also Christ's body on the cross.

​@@transfigured3673 Did he really? Source? If it's true, it might be due to lingering Catholic influence, but then again, I might be a bit biased...

@@EmJay2022 That doesn't necessarily mean he had lingering Catholic influence. The internal combustion engine was invented by (at least) 3 different folks who had no contact with each other. It's entirely possible someone saw the same things in scripture independent of any influence that the Catholic and Orthodox ECF's saw.

Good combo

Roman Catholic Neoplatonist! You're only proving his point. In all serious, I don't think FSDY is right about the west being neoplatonist while the east isn't.

@@transfigured3673as a former Neoplatonist and a current Eastern Orthodox I think it depends on a very close reading of the Desert Fathers and St. Maximus the Confessor.

@@transfigured3673also the Eastern Orthodox Church has always maintained that the Dionysian corpus is authentic, and there is recent scholarship utilizing textual analysis defending that. And so, from the perspective of the history of philosophy its actually Christianity that originally influences Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism rather than the other way around.

​@@transfigured3673 well although st. Augustine criticised platonists in Civita Dei, he himself had a lot of platonism in him. Same goes for our generation. We are all post-modernist to some degree

No, that sounds fascinating. Thanks for the recommendation

In what world is publicly saying Origen is a saint of the church ‘based’? Falling under anathemas is not based. The church has never taught that she developed or that she previously erred and we need to revise things… it’s just imported RC modernism

@esoterico7750 I am afraid you extracted the wrong sentiment from my comment, a drawback of this medium. But you do sort of prove the intended point. Have a good one

Origen was based.

@@severian_matachinwould you mind explaining what you did mean? I'm confused by it too--not for the other commenter's reason, but just because I've never encountered the "based" sentiment towards the OCA (quite the opposite)

I’ve seen it too! In Mtskheta!

When I record late at night, I sometimes go to my parent's house so my wife can sleep better

No the best table manners to comment on someone's channel to tell them they aren't a Christian. I'm not expecting you to agree of even approve of my theology, but perhaps it is wise to be slower to judge who is and isn't a Christian.

@@transfigured3673 Saying someone doesn’t adhere to Christian orthodoxy is not a put down or shouldn’t be construed that way. There are lots of wonderful people who don’t adhere to Christian orthodoxy. It is just an observation. Apologies if I caused offense.

Understood. I totally get that I don't adhere to Christian Orthodoxy as commonly defined. Slightly different than saying I am not a Christian.

Please go on. You’re making good points

@@transfigured3673 Haha thanks, but I think I've said everything concerning the things that caught my attention the most :)

Excellent rebuttal! It's always super easy to slam church fathers who do not support your position as heretics. Origen was a far better and more knowledgeable Christian than most of us alive today. You don't need to accept everything he wrote "as gospel" to see this, and I think Origen himself would warn you to be careful about substituting his teachings and musings as the revealed word.

Very good question

The synagogue has icons in the main hall where the fathering was and the restoration process affirms this

@@shiningdiamond5046 again having biblical story murals in the main halls does not prove veneration or how people behaved in these spaces AND we do have surviving Jewish accounts that do not indicate that in the mosaiced and murals synagogues of the Gallillee veneration was happening - bc we have clear reactions in these texts to non-Jewish veneration issues. We can't claim they were aware and they didn't care about such things

​@@yosefrazin6455 Those texts don't refer to veneration of the Byzantine thought in the negative also this a setup for a quantifier shift since "veneration" is an umbrella term for many of the external acts of granting honor even just looking at a painting and being reverent of who and what is portrayed is veneration internally and it was always mandated to bow from the waist or do the sign of the cross when entering a temple or Church so yes the space is venerated

High quality comment. Thanks

Because the decrees of a committee, no matter how high minded they might be, are only worthwhile if they are in *perfect agreement* with the revealed Word of God, which will always be the penultimate judge, even if it has no seat at the table. When you see the plethora of writings *against* idolatry of all kinds throughout the Bible, there is no honest way you can start carving out exceptions for Jesus, Mary, the saints, etc., especially since there is not so much as a single line of text anywhere in the Bible that condones such activity. The *only* notable exception, is the making of the two angels on the top of the ark of the covenant, inside the temple, where NO ONE was allowed to view it except the high priest. Hence, not much of an exception. So you can take your ecuminical decress, and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. And that's how there are Christians who don't accept this sort of dogma.

​@@Pseudo_Boethius I can tell you're quite passionate about your protestantism. It is the Orthodox view that the decrees of an ecumenical council are inspired by the Holy Spirit, the same way that scripture was inspired. Therefore, you are actively denying the Holy Spirit by denying the ecumenical councils. On the off-chance that it's a point you've considered, why don't you believe the Holy Spirit was alive and active in the ecumenical councils, inspiring their decrees? Or are you simply saying that you know the Holy Spirit was not present because the decree contradicts Holy Scripture? That of course is false. And when you say an exception can't be made for Jesus, what exactly is "idolatry of Jesus", isn't that just worship of the True God?

@@Pseudo_Boethius But that's begging the question. You said "idolatry is bad" (all Christians agree) "therefore we shouldn't venerate icons." You have to connect the two directly. And you admit there are exceptions. You admit that God says not to make *any* graven images of *anything* and then turns right around and commands them to make a whole host of graven images. It's almost like the graven images aren't the problem, only disordered use of them. Your singular exception is laughably ridiculous. In the tabernacle alone there were dozens of engravings and weavings of plants and cherubim. But let's find another one, shall we? The bronze serpent in the wilderness, easily understood as an icon of Christ. Men had to physically interact with it to be delivered from the fiery serpents (looking at it). The serpent is a graven image, is it not? Interaction with it is a necessity, is it not? What did God mean by this? Maybe your clear categories and systemization doesn't quite match up with reality, iconoclast.

​@@lausdeo4944 - I'm no iconoclast: I use _both_ Windows and MacOS every single day! As for the bronze serpent....oh my.... *"In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done. He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord. He did not depart from following him, but kept the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses. And the Lord was with him; wherever he went out, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him. He struck down the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city."* (2 Kings 18) There were no iconoclasts like the OT Jewish iconoclasts! Now those guys meant business!!! And God was all for it, without exception. This is just one passage amongst *hundreds* that show that neither icon nor idol veneration was allowed, and the NT did not change this law what-so-ever. Personally, I love icons...as decorations. :-)

Ok orthobro, are there any limits to that future development? Any reason the church couldn't allow gay marriage in the future if there is no limit to when development can occur chronologically so long as the church ushers in that change properly? Any reason why the Nicene Creed couldn't be overruled and Biblical Unitarianism proclaimed as the proper orthodox teaching of the church superseding centuries of ignorance?

@@transfigured3673 Dear Sir or Madam, Technically no. If all the Bishops of Orthodoxy got together to affirm the heresies you mentioned and it were upheld for a couple of hundred centuries by those that follow them en masse. Possible, I suppose. Likely, not remotely for what would be required is the abject rejection of Scripture and Tradition that has held the Church together against all manner and kind of heresy from the first Century to today. Think about it, every heretical schism has come from one man one place in one region from Arianism, to Nestorianism to monophysism to Roman Catholicism to Protestantism. Protestants couldn’t even agree with each other from town to town city to city principality to principality. That’s precious why Melanchthon wrote multiple letters to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople begging and pleading for recognition that never came. The are still Nestorian Churches and Arianism runs rampant through many strains of Protestantism. One such Protestant Apologist wrote at length about early Heresy sometime near the end of the last century to prove that because it was old it’s O.K. What was that guys name? Anyway it would also require the participation of the Patriarch of Rome and I don’t think that’s happening anytime soon. In other words, yes, but it would require the Orthodox to cease being Orthodox.

Does God have a material/elemental body?

@@transfigured3673 I think it is a possibility. I don't see any other way to explain the resurrected Jesus being able to eat and be touched unless one believes it was a mass hallucination of some sort. Many have taken that route of course. If you define materiality very broadly as including fields/energy/waves or yet to be discovered "material" that can pass through walls I could see it making sense.

I try to think as little as possible. Mostly unsuccessfully. Most traditions have the suppression of what we think of as thinking as a primary goal.

@@nathanwoodsy I don’t know what I think of that… Kidding. And not kidding.

Fair point

These angels were .... men. The Lord literally stood right in front of Abraham therefore it was God talking to Abraham face to face. Of course, in Orthodox belief which Fr. Stephen is representing here..

Interesting

I agree. I think in John 10 Jesus is taking the human beings interpretation of Psalm 82, not the divine council one. I am sympathetic to the idea that both interpretations can be true, but it does seem to me like Jesus's take fits better with human judges.

We mention that possibility. I think there are good reasons to think Jesus did not interpret it that way

Most Biblical scholars agree with his view, especially critical scholars. And the LXX and DSS preserves the “gods” reading as well.

Good point

Very true. Also, multi places seem to contradict that idea.

John 10 affirms that it was Jesus who meet Moses in Exodus especially in the burning bush

why "only begotten god" in J1:18 instead of "only begotten son"

Agreed. But a visible messenger can bear God's name. Human or angel.

Only one was

Yes and no. There is a strong continuity of timeline and an insistence on original audience interpretation