Why the Orthodox Veneration of icons, Saints, and the Theotokos is Not Idolatry 

Even the most esteemed vocalists sing love songs to the object of their affection. Their lyrics could be something to the effect of: Baby, baby, I love you; let's climb the mountain and swim the ocean; and gaze into the stars all night long; you and me for eternity, never leaving your side... Yet no one accuses these singers of idolatry. Now, the Orthodox sings love songs of adoration to our pure Mother -- the Mother of God -- and we are accused of the sin of idolatry. Do the Saints not deserve greater praises than the secular love songs we know so well?

Hey Baptist here. I appreciate this and im glad to have a better understanding. I am reading more about Orthodox christianity and letting God lead me.

What a great answer! Thank you Father! 😊 I sometimes think about how protestants do not actually have _zero_ icons, they do have one. It's the cross. But they are taught not to depict Jesus on the cross, so it becomes an icon of a tree with no fruit, a holy place with no high priest, and a throne with no king 😢

An icon on the computer screen, isn't the program but only an image that represents the program. An Orthodox Icon is an image that represents the person, not the person itself.

If the world was more Orthodox we would have a better and stronger Church.

Great explanation. This is always a point of protestant contention.

5:15 Wow wow wow. Sorry i am so enthousiastic. This is so beautifully explained and said. I love you Father. Coming from a Protestant background i could not understand Christianity. As i was a little child Jesus was my friend. Really He was my friend. I take him to places to play. He was my invisible friend in a very disfunctional household. I could say, He was my Father and Mother because my Father and Mother in the flesh where very hurted souls (dispite there dogmatic Protestant believe=system) I leave the Church, not because of Christ but of the strangeness of the Protestant teachings. The Church was like a graveyard, a cold tomb. The believe is very sad. They say: " you are like a worm, you are sinfull disgusting creature", and at the same breath:".you are a child of God, he created you". There was no warm feelings in the Church. Now i am learning and reading the Saints (Gregorry of Palamas, Saint Paisios, John Chrysostom, Father Thaddus) and listen to teachings on this channel, it is like a tressurebox, a gift from heaven. It is like i was reading the bible in Chinese language and now for the first time reading it in my own language. I can not believe how they did this, how could people ever listen to Calvine, how can someone leave this beauty, this Beautifull Bride, this wonderfull Church and start to life in a graveyard-consiousness. Butchering the teachings, neglected the Saint who are the living withness of THIS HOLY TEACHING. Without THEM there is no WITHNESS. Without the Saints, the teachings make no sense. Jesus Christ become a mythe, like Zeus or whatever imagined fairytale you want to believe in. Father Peter Heers is this desem in the bread, the condence of the Holy Churchfathers who teach us, and behind him ARE THE SAINTS, like a chain of Pearls, and when we follow them, we become LIKE them. For the first time I pray with Icons, kiss them, put them to my heart. They become my friends because i don't have any Christian friend (because of my previous livestyle....I know only very leftist friends who disagree with me on every point....hahaha they think i had loosed my mind totally and maybe this might be the case....) but now I have trough the Icons Holy friends. And for long time, i can connect again with the innocent believing child i once was. How beaytifull, how rich, how precious is the time we live in. Utterly dark and obviousley demonic, we don;t have to doubt the narrative of the Bible and the Saints any more. We can see it with our own eyes and feel it. The contrast is so immens, that the Heaven break open for us, everyday when we praise Our Lord, The Saints and The Holy Thetokos, Mother of God. Thank you dear lovely Father.

When my grandmother died I remember kissing her photo and telling her I loved her. Not worshiping her, just thinking of her and missing her. I'm not sure it's the same thing though. I'm processing all of this.

God bless the orthodox Church !!!

Very interesting informative video, with a fresh and different line of argument. Thank you for posting 💯🙏☦️

The Church: Everything is in Christ and for Christ ☦️♥️

Άξιος father! That's what the world needs to know! I'll pray for you!

This is honestly the ONLY major thing that is a barrier for me

AMEN 🙏 LOVE BEING ORTHODOX.

thank you Father its good to hear things so.clearly defined.

Thank you Father for the answer! ☦️🙏❤️

Apostle Luke painted first icon,theres no reason to call him idol worshipper

Very good explanation!

I thank God for the enlightenment of Orthodoxy. Thank you God for allowing me to find this truth

I like these discussions so much, thank you so much and be blessed. As an Orthodox from a country which is since the Apostles’ time Orthodox-Romania- it warms my heart to see discussions on Orthodoxy in English.

Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Luke 20:37-40 37Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. 39Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. 40And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.

Nailed that one shut.

Thanks!

God bless the Holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council as well as the Venerable and Holy Saonts John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite in their defense of the Holy Icons!!

"Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them." Psalm 115

Iconography is not art. Icons are “written”; not “drawn”. Iconography is a language. It speaks to us. Jesus the Christ is the WORD of God. The Bible is a book describing the word of God. It is written text. Just like Iconography is written. The word “iconography” is derived from the Greek words “eikon” meaning “image” and “graphos” meaning “to write.” The icon image is a visual symbol of the invisible. Icons express in images the spiritual realities that are inexpressible in words and inaccessible to our rational mind. Iconography is an important theological truth. A theological principal the concept of the incarnation. The truth that the invisible God, took on flesh and became visible in his creation. That changes the way we deal with the physical. Our gift of site has been given to us to honor and glorify God. Iconography is a supreme gift designed to stir up a love and devotion for who is depicted in the iconography. It is a physical, beautiful reminder of love devotion and affection; a remembrance. Orthodox iconography calls us to proper honor and veneration. We, ourselves, are living icons of God as we are made in God’s image. Iconography played a very important role in the early days of the Church as the literacy level was extremely low. The entire Gospel is written out on the walls of Orthodox churches in “images”.

Another analogy I like to give in defense of the veneration of icons to protestants is in Americans treatment of our flag. We fold it a very certain way for very symbolic reasons, we burn it if it touches the ground, we all stand, and place our hands over our hearts when it is raised. But nobody is accused of worshipping the flag or America when this is done, even the most evangelical protestant knows its done out of RESPECT and HONOR which is exactly what we do with the veneration of Icons and the treatment of Holy things, places, relics, etc.

I ask as an outsider coming from an evangelical background...how does one differentiate between when one is veneration and worshiping? Externally, it's hard to tell the difference from my perspective. Is it more so about an inward disposition?

May the two speakers here forgive me for any offense I have done against them

Let me ask you this -- did Jesus or the Apostles use icons or teach the first century Church to use icons? No. If they didn't use them, then they are an invention of later uninspired men, and we should not use them either.

Not sold, this and intercession of the departed is the only things holding me back from orthodox

I get the idea of honor and respect. I would love to get totally on board, but I have questions about some of the practices, let's say at Vespers, when we commemorate and honor saints. For instance, we'll sing about someone's life, then say somethign like, "we glorify thee/you." I understand the concept of Holy Tradition, and that the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura. I respect that. I'd like to be able to understand how the idea of honoring/glorifying saints in song is Apostolic and in line with Scripture. I was trying to find an example of this sort of thing in the Old or New Testaments. I'd like to find one. I think I might have found one in the Psalms but not sure. Any help with that would be appreciated.

So is veneration a form of Divine worship? Since we are glorifying God through glorifying his Saints??

May both of the speaker here forgive me for any offense I have done against them

Best answer I have seen so far. I would say that people do pray to The Virgin Mary and to other Saints. Saints that the church,(not God) , has canonized.If it is the position of the church, that you shouldn't pray to. Saints or Mary. Only to God. Then you have changed my mind.

I am an Orthodox Christian, and my cousin is protestant and says the saints in heaven do not hear our prayers because they are not omnipresent, and i know only God is omnipresent but, How can i answer his question? Please reply and Thankyou in advance for your answer. 🙏

Is the iconographic a priest, deacon, or monk? Thank you Father Peter.

7:00 and love

in the second commandment in the old testament says ου προσκυνησεις.... has the meaning of the word changed since the septuagint was written?

May both speakers here forgive me for any offense I have done against them

An orthodox priest said it like this. His kids went to a picture on his wall of their deceased grandfather and kissed it. And when asked: “who did you kiss?”, they replied “Grandfather”. Obviously the picture itself is not their grandfather, but it is the person that the picture represents they were talking about. An icon is the window to the person it portrays. The icon itself is nothing other than a plank of wood and paint.

I'm going to be honest, this didn't make sense to me. Can someone explain in a simpler and more concise way, how kissing and worshipping these icons is not idolatry and avoids violating the 2nd commandment?

Got to make money some how right ? Icons are big money makers.

Perhaps Eusebius' letter to Constantia (the sister of Constantine the Great) may be helpful. Constantia requested that Eusebius (the church historian who authored The Church History) send her an image of Christ, and Eusebius wrote her the following response. I quote a translation of it here, at least the full of what survives to this day: Translation by Cyril Mango, from The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453 (1972, rep. 1986), p. 16-18. Letter from Eusebius of Caesaria (circa 260-399 AD) to Constantia. [I marked notable portions in bold.] "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." You also wrote me concerning some supposed image of Christ, which image you wished me to send you. Now what kind of thing is this that you call the image of Christ? I do not know what impelled you to request that an image of Our Saviour should be delineated. What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears His essential characteristics, or the one which He took up for our sake when He assumed the form of a servant? … Granted, He has two forms, even I do not think that your request has to do with His divine form. … Surely then, you are seeking His image as a servant, that of the flesh which He put on for our sake. But that, too, we have been taught, was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. Indeed, it is not surprising that after His ascent to heaven He should have appeared as such, when, while He-the God, Logos-was yet living among men, He changed the form of the servant, and indicating in advance to a chosen band of His disciples the aspect of His Kingdom, He showed on the mount that nature which surpasses the human one-when His face shone like the sun and His garments like light. Who, then, would be able to represent by means of dead colors and inanimate delineations (skiagraphiai) the glistening, flashing radiance of such dignity and glory, when even His superhuman disciples could not bear to behold Him in this guise and fell on their faces, thus admitting that they could not withstand the sight? If, therefore, His incarnate form possessed such power at the time, altered as it was by the divinity dwelling within Him, what need I say of the time when He put off mortality and washed off corruption, when He changed the form of the servant into the glory of the Lord God… ? … How can one paint an image of so wondrous and unattainable a form-if the term ‘form’ is at all applicable to the divine and spiritual essence-unless, like the unbelieving pagans, one is to represent things that bear no possible resemblance to anything… ? For they, too, make such idols when they wish to mould the likeness of what they consider to be a god or, as they might say, one of the heroes or anything else of the kind, yet are unable even to approach a resemblance, and so delineate and represent some strange human shapes. Surely, even you will agree that such practices are not lawful for us. But if you mean to ask of me the image, not of His form transformed into that of God, but that of the mortal flesh before its transformation, can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone? Once- I do not know how-a woman brought me in her hands a picture of two men in the guise of philosophers and let fall the statement that they were Paul and the Saviour-I have no means of saying where she had had this from or learned such a thing. With the view that neither she nor others might be given offence, I took it away from her and kept it in my house, as I thought it improper that such things ever be exhibited to others, lest we appear, like idol worshippers, to carry our God around in an image. I note that Paul instructs all of us not to cling any more to things of the flesh; for, he says, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. It is said that Simon the sorcerer is worshipped by godless heretics painted in lifeless material. I have also seen myself the man who bears the name of madness57 [painted] on an image and escorted by Manichees. To us, however, such things are forbidden. For in confessing the Lord God, Our Saviour, we make ready to see Him as God, and we ourselves cleanse our hearts that we may see Him after we have been cleansed… [Footnote] 57 “the man who bears the name of madness” is Mani the founder of Manichaeism. [Mani is the heretic after whom Manichaeism, a form of gnosticism, is named. Eusebius talks about and condemns his heresy in "The Church History", book 7, chapter 31.] It is very notable to me that this was written in the fourth century, where it was observed by Eusebius that the use of images was "banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?" I bring this up because it seems to me that Christians who are lured to the Orthodox or Catholic church have this notion that they are somehow getting in touch with the ancient and original Christianity, but from the looks of this letter from Eusebius, it looks like the original Christianity actually took the Bible's commandments about not making images and not venerating them very seriously. It looks like what is being passed off as a historic Christianity is actually Christianity that has strayed from its roots. Consider this passage from History of Eastern Christianity about the Church of the East: Then suddenly came the age of re-discovery1 of their little community as a revelation to a bewildered world. The story started with a certain Claude James Rich, then Resident of the British East lndia Company in Baghdad, who was not a man of religion but happened to he highly cultured and possessed of a very keen interest in archaeology. He visited the ancient site of the Biblical city of Nineveh in 1820, and his report2 on the area excited all manner of circles, both scholarly and missionary, in England and America. At long last he revealed to the English-speaking races the astounding facts about the Assyrians, who still conversed in a language similar to that spoken by Jesus and the Apostles and whose peculiar form of Christianity called for study and sympathy. A systematic archaeological exploration was commenced by A. H. Layard.3 On the religious side, however, the Nestorians were evidently and traditionally anti-popish and had neither icons nor crucifixes in their churches, only a simple and symbolic Cross. Their attitude towards the Virgin Mary was much akin to Protestant conceptions. Could they be the ancient ‘Protestants of the East’? Hence ensued a deluge of missions and Protestant missionaries to those forlorn sons of a historic church in their Godforsaken abodes. The Church of the East split from the Great Church (a.k.a. the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" prior to any major schism) at the council of Ephesus in 431 AD, over Nestorius (patriarch of Constantinople) being falsely condemned and excommunicated for a heresy he didn't teach, with Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch of Alexandria) prosecuting him with a misrepresentation of his teaching, accusing him of teaching that there were two Christs, one human and one divine, because Nestorius taught that Mary ought to be called the Christotokos (the "mother of Christ") rather than Theotokos ("mother of God"). (See Know the Creeds and Councils, Chapter 3, Council of Ephesus.) From that time on, Nestorius was known as a heretic in the west, but as a saint in the east: Mar Nestor. My point in quoting Eusebius and this portion about the Church of the East is that it shows that the image venerating sects of Christianity are not representing some sort of continuity with early historic Christianity, the very thing that Protestant converts to Eastern Orthodoxy find appealing. Rather, image veneration appear to represent a deviation from what the church originally practiced for at least its first four centuries, as confirmed by these two witnesses-Eusebius, and the Church of the East-I can't say it better than Eusebius said it, so I'll quote him again: can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is in the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world, and is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone?

I don’t stumble on icons nor the veneration of them… but praying to them is where I’m stuck. I adore my grandchildren and kiss their pictures, but I don’t pray to them. Can someone please help me out here? I just don’t have the revelation yet…. Or maybe this will be another video?

so when the Israelites created the calf and said tomorrow is a festival to Yahweh.. they knew the statue wasnt YAHWEH but it was worshipping through the statue... how is that different? God was still angry and rebuked them.

I'm a Protestant. Is veneration required for salvation?

Here is another video for those who still not understand that icon veneration is not idolatry: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9eFanbRjgIM.html

What about in revelation 22:9-10 when John fell and worshipped (προσκυνῆσαι) the angel and he said to not do that. Worship (προσκύνησον) God.

The other half is praying to the saints. That makes saints seem like gods, or at the very least that the prayers of some are not received or as powerful as those of others.

No scriptural support for icon veneration, it wasn't taught or practiced by the Apostles. That's just a fact.

So, as long as one does not worship something in place of God it is OK? One must ask that if you are just honoring and respecting extraordinary believers from the past when do you cross the line into idolatry? Is it as long as you claim you are not doing so? I honor and respect some great figure from the past. I might even have a picture of them hanging on the wall (e.g., George Washington). But do I think he now can feel or know I am honoring and respecting him when I gaze at the picture? That is, do I think he has some supernatural ability to receive that communication whenever I do it? Do I think he now knows me and is able to convey to God my need for grace and help in time of need? In other words, do I think he now has the attribute of omniscience? There is a difference in keeping an icon as a reminder to live a certain type of life and what I just described. But to attribute God-like abilities to a human being is idolatry.

There is so much father says that is inaccurate. His description of likeness and image of God is true but it stop distant from how the likeness and image of God connect with icons. What he says as far as kissing an icon in the same way as we kiss a photo of a loved one is the go to answer for every clergyman I have ever heard describe what an icon is, but so wrong. I have never and will never use the analogy of kissing an icon as we do a photograph as synonymous. His explanation as to why reverencing an icon is not idolatry is very vague and not done well.

The Greeks, for example, who made idols to their gods, are not worshipping the wood or the marble or whatever matter they are created from?? They are worshipping the demon that is Apollo or Aphrodite or Poseidon which is only visibly represented by the statue. How is that different than worshipping Jesus as represented by an image made of paint?

The reason why its NOT idolatry in my opinion its cause i understand these crosses and statues of saints to be just that . (Statues) just that plastic or ceramic materials and if the statue was to get broken or replaced (although i would see it kinda messed up cause its desegration of an image of god) I would have no personal attachment to the statue itseld in that sense , casue god is everywhere and if a statue breaks for example just replace it with more materials .. in my opinion having an attachment and WORSHIPING the statue as oppose to worship that god that is in the universe, and just usinf the statues ti remind of us of Jesus but knowing jesus is not in the statue but ALIVE IN HEAVEN and taking care od ua here on warth. God bless your brothers, amen.

Irrespective of whether it is idolatry, apostles and angels in the New Testament clearly forbid the veneration of themselves and command that Christ alone should be worshipped. The employment of fancy words doesn't change this. Orthodox confuse the issue by saying (1) we aren't worshipping the person, but just respecting and honoring him (or her), and then (2) we are worshipping the image/likeness of Christ in that person. Pick a lane, friend. If we are merely showing honor and respect, then it is not culturally normative to kiss, pray to, bow or prostrate, etc., to or before images (in the West, at least). Don't command or expect acts normally, culturally associated with worship and say they are merely respect honor. If we are worshipping, then just be honest about it (and then deal with the passages that clearly forbid it). There is some controversy, confusion, and ambiguity regarding the use of images, statues, and similar in the early Church. The preponderance of the evidence is clear that such things were generally discouraged or at least rare in early liturgy. Further, we have ZERO evidence of the veneration of images (i.e., prostrating before, kissing, praying to them, etc.) in the early Church. Over time (centuries) their employment in liturgy and liturgical spaces increased, leading to great controversy and a council (Nicaea 2). By then -- almost 800 years after Jesus -- various Church leaders asserted that the veneration of icons was normative, required, and even apostolic. It is routine among Christian groups to attempt to read their current practices back into the early Church (or prior). Roman Catholics do this with Papal Supremacy. Orthodox do it with icon veneration. Ultimately, worship is an attitude of the heart that expresses itself through word and action. Culture is what dictates which words/actions constitute one or the other. In modern Western culture, kissing images, praying to them, bowing or prostrating before them are acts that represent worship.

the amount of protestant cope in this comment section is hilarious

Isaiah 44:9-20 9 All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame. 10 Who shapes a god and casts an idol, which can profit nothing? 11 People who do that will be put to shame; such craftsmen are only human beings. Let them all come together and take their stand; they will be brought down to terror and shame. 12 The blacksmith takes a tool and works with it in the coals; he shapes an idol with hammers, he forges it with the might of his arm. He gets hungry and loses his strength; he drinks no water and grows faint. 13 The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in human form, human form in all its glory, that it may dwell in a shrine. 14 He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. 15 It is used as fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. 16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” 17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, “Save me! You are my god!” 18 They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. 19 No one stops to think, no one has the knowledge or understanding to say, “Half of it I used for fuel; I even baked bread over its coals, I roasted meat and I ate. Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left? Shall I bow down to a block of wood?” 20 Such a person feeds on ashes; a deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself, or say, “Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?

1. The second commandment (Ex. 20:4ff) explicitly describes what is prohibited: making an image and bowing to it. Doing that very thing but claiming the images are not really idols but "icons" and the bowing isn't really worship but "veneration" is not convincing. 2. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” This is the accurate translation. 3. Origen(184-254) responded to Celsus by admitting that Christians used no images; he mocked the notion that images were helpful in worship, and, citing the Second Commandment wrote, “It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they [Christians] not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.” (Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64.) 4. Eusebius (c. AD 263 - 339) wrote that even the incarnate Christ cannot appear in an image, for "the flesh which He put on for our sake … was mingled with the glory of His divinity so that the mortal part was swallowed up by Life. . . . This was the splendor that Christ revealed in the transfiguration and which cannot be captured in human art. To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." 5. Epiphanius (inter 310-320 - 403): "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” (Epiphanius, Letter 51, chapter 9).

Asking Theotokos for salvation goes against the message of the Gospels. Can you follow Christ without praying to the saints and Mary or it is essential for salvation?

There is no difference between worship and veneration found in the scripture and no difference as they are found in the ancient Hebrew culture that received the commandments from God. To me, it is clear that there is a reason we see no Hebrew "veneration" of icons of biblical pillars like Moses, Noah, Isaiah, etc. This is because the understanding has always been that anything like what EO calls iconography is, in fact, idolatry.

Exedous 20: 4-6 4.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; It doesn't just say you should not worship them, it says you shall make NO image of anything in heaven or on earth etc, it also says thou shall not bow down before them, nor worship them. Have you watched an orthodox Christian bow before the images, images that should not be there. For anyone to read this scripture and then believe the verbal machinations used to justify their use astounds me.

Forgive me for any offence I have done against you both

why not just worship jesus straight up

1:04 exactly. Worship God not creation. Repent and trust in Jesus

Well, as a Christian, I put this video to see if this gentleman can argue anything in favor of the Catholic custom of prostrating oneself before images, but I was completely wrong. What a poor and empty argument. Mary didn't even believe in her son's mission, besides, Jesus never called her mother, and also that Jesus had more biological siblings. Exodus 20:4-5 is explicit. However, despite the very words of the Lord Jesus in John 14:06, they are obsessed with images and paganism, with pomp and ceremonies...

This and calling the priests father are what are preventing me from converting. Even the Bible says not to call anyone on earth father as we only have one father. Anyone care to explain this

Two nature: The God Being versus The Human Being. The Nicene Creed declares Jesus The LOGOS as being "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God." When humans are created we become living souls with human agency. The LOGOS brought forth by the Spirit of God (John 4:24) has only the Devine agency and that no other human agency, that is owing to a new living soul was created because the LOGOS is uncreated. As Jesus would say in the Garden of Gethsemane "not my will but your will", later Jesus would comment "The Spirit is strong yet the human nature is weak". You have a war between two natures being played out, the Devine nature versus the Human nature and only one agency prevailing, that is the Devine agency of the Father's will, otherwise why would Jesus say? "Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me." It is clear that Jesus differentiated the Devine agency owing to the Devine nature of the LOGOS from that of the human/flesh nature. There was no harmonious hypostasis union of two natures, but rather a war coming to a crescendo, where Jesus differentiates the Devine nature which is NOT flesh (John 4:24) to that of the human/flesh nature which is the brain, when he states "The Spirit is strong yet the flesh is weak". Jesus sweated drops of blood from human/flesh nature's pain and anguish as the human brain is in a fight or flight mode with hormones going of the chart and brain impulses going of. A perfect hypostasis union of two natures wouldn't portray a vast contrast between a strong Devine nature and a weak human nature, unless it is conveying that the LOGOS has voluntarily placed himself in the place of His servants as The Suffering Servant of Isaiah. What does sweating blood mean physiologically? Hematohidrosis occurs under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress. What was going on with his human nature? If two agencies were contending with one another then one was strong and the other weak, yet at the end regardless of the physiological factors only one will owing to the Devine agency won out, why? And what does that tell us? Father's Will won out at the expense of the human will? Where is the harmonious hypostasis union in that? Actually this would only make sense if you discern that only the Devine agency was present and the Devine agency literally tore that human nature flesh/tent apart and caused it to go into Hematohidrosis in order for the Devine to physically experience real suffering through the physical human flesh. The LOGOS suffered and took that human nature and nailed it to the Cross and the very same Devine nature as He said He would do, raised it after three days. The risen Lord as Paul said retired that human nature form that He took on for those 33 years and then put on the Heavenly nature form as the Lord of Heaven, the Last Adam. Is the Lord human or does He retain His humanity (human nature)? Neither. The 1st Adam didn't have a mother and God was his Father, so too, is the Last Adam who is the Son of God and doesn't have an earthly mother. How can the risen Lord who is the first fruit of the Resurrection have a mother if He is the first of the New Creation of God and that all of us are to be born again by the Fire and the quickened of the Spirit? First Adam was born of water and blood (1 John 5:6) and the Last Adam is born of Fire and Spirit (Matthew 3:11). Human nature (1 John 5:6) as opposed to the Heavenly nature (Matthew 3:11). Further evidence after the Lord's resurrection the Lord said His Heavenly Body is flesh and bone, in the absence of blood. Thomas touched the wounds and did not observe any blood gushing out of His open wounds and a human body doesn't miraculously enter rooms unannounced without using doors or windows as a physical human nature body does. Since blood and DNA is absent and it follows that there is no genetic markers that would link the risen Lord to Mary as his mother. In fact Jesus said in the resurrection there are no family unions between husbands and wives, but are as the angels in Heaven. Saint Paul also excludes genealogies from the question of the resurrection and further adds that we are born again as sons/daughters of God as the first Adam was before he was kicked out. Yet in the Heavenly bodies that are given in the resurrection, Paul differentiates them from the earthly tent and equates the form to a totally different form to that of the earthly and John in 1 John 3:2 doesn't comprehend the Lord's form, as he was with the Lord when in human nature form, yet John states what "we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." The mother of God title therefore uses the term God to refer to only one member of the Trinity while excluding the other two members and therefore theologically this term can never be applied outside of the Trinity who is the One True God and the One Substance declared in the Nicene Creed. Using the title the mother of God is therefore theologically none-Trinitarian by application of the term and results in a form of blasphemy by using the Lord's name in vain. Even the mother of Christ is incorrect and can only be used during the 33 years whilst the Lord was clothed with human nature and anything outside of those years is theologically incorrect as the Last Adam does not physically or spiritually have a mother as the first fruit of the resurrection, but as Jesus would say God will be your Father. So the risen Lord is bringing us back to the restored Garden as the New Creation and being resurrected by the Spirit on our last day in the body, which is why Paul would say "to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.” No one can be present with the Lord in the human nature form and as Paul would say we count that human nature as dead, before we too carry our crosses until the day it is dissolved forever never to be raised as the earthy nature. Jesus even stated "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." In other words the human nature is good for nothing and will not enter into the Father's House.

To venerate and worship in dictionary both say mean same depending on dictionary used : to adoration, respect, to worship and revere. An object of veneration or worship it says. לְהַעֲרִיץ in hebrew venerate is to admire, adore, venerate, worship, revere, idolize. Worship in greek is to praise or venerate. Think denial here and ignoring obvious. He talks right around it. Honor and respect is fine. Art work is fine but praying to or at venerating, worshiping like objects icons is idolatry in old testament and new. The first church discovered archeologists uncovered in jordan they did not find any icons or art work on the walls. The destroying of sacred art in the iconoplast era prompted doctrines to protect the Art and in came the icon ideology

If we look at the story of Moses, God gave Moses a bronze serpent to heal people but later on people start worshiping the object. Icons similar effect instead of making us closer to God, they take away the worship from God. Even it’s for a purpose of veneration but because of luck of knowledge a lot of people will be mislead

semantics is all nice but ill not stick when this man have to wanser why you did what i tell not to do?

But it's still an image my brother. Sometimes people can't have an intimacy with God without any looking to the so called icons right? Jesus Christ said worship in spirit and truth.

It 100% is idolatry. I don’t care how you try to spin it with the word salad you guys use.

This doesn't really explain the issue of asking for intercession of some kind. It's already questionable to be praising someone other than God, when you could just be praising Him instead. But it's even worse that we don't really have an explanation of *why* it would be important to pray to a saint rather than the Father Himself, like Jesus recommended.

But God said not to worship objects, cause they are dead. “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." So, no image of anything even of what is in heaven Jesus said in Bible: I am the only way to my Father. The problem, people not just respect the saints, but they are praying to icons. And the bible calls us, people, also "saints". So, we , christians - are saints. So, we, saints pray to other saint . . . Seriously? Didn't the Father say: I am a jealous God, I will not give the glory to the other. So, our God will give glory to saints? who used to be people? And to worship mother? She was chosen by God, she was blessed. But to kiss her icon and to pray to her and to worship her? But God said: Do Not

ummm...it's "make no image...of anything...do not bow and serve"...nothing about worship or veneration...or replacing Him... even bronze serpent He commission was destroyed merely because they burned incense to it...ALL the images He commissioned were destroyed BECAUSE they were abused...and Jews never argued "He had us make images so we can keep doing it"...the irony He also told them to Remember the Sabbath but suddenly "NO NO that's just for da Jews"...lol but yeah...yours need "holy" tradition because it's not in His scripture...because if it were in His scripture it wouldn't be your tradition... Paul didn't teach immortality...so the dead know nothing...but here you add insult to injury by insisting others who are dead help as He ALONE is not enough to mediate for us...

Matthew 15:8 seems appropriate. “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” Repent and believe the gospel. Ask Christ to forgive and save you once and for all and trust nothing else. Salvation comes by no other means. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9.

And yet, it appears, that the greater veneration is directed towards Θεοτόκος and not Jesus Himself. Jesus is God in nature and taught us God’s Truths for our own salvation. The Church has to restore the balance and redirect our attention to those teachings and not to the person of Mary -with all respect-.

False! Idolatry is the use of graven images of anything in heaven, and earth. It is bowing down to them (Exodus 20). The term "Theotokos" is also false. God does not have a mother. Mary was the mother of the son of God. The Heers guy is twisting scipture.

God has no mother so blasphemous

Veneration is worship. It’s amazing the lengths humans will go to disobey a plain command of God for what they want to do. I get it because I see the lure of the trappings in orthodox churches. However to obey is better than to be comforted by traditions of men

Lol, use whatever false definitions you want, but the Bible just prohibits images and devotion to images. Almost every polytheistic pantheon believes that idols are manifesting some of God’s attributes and that devotion to these idols brings one closer to the Ultimate God. The orthodox explanation isn’t anything new or unique

then i guess murder isnt murder

Lies and hypocrisy.

May the two speakers here forgive me for any offense I have done against them

May the two speakers here forgive me for any offense I have done against them