Debate: "Icon Veneration as Defined by the Second Nicene Counsel (787) is Apostolic"

Good morning. Joy to be with you. I'm Virgil Walker. I'm one of the pastors here at Redeemer Bible Church and on behalf of the church here the church body here pastor John Benzinger want to welcome you to this venue.

We're excited to host this debate. I'm extremely excited having watched a number of dr White's debates over the course of the years and getting familiar with the. With his opponent looking forward to a robust debate here over the course of the next little few hours.

That said let me open up with a resolution. It is the veneration of icons as defined by the second Nicene Council in 787 is apostolic. In the affirmative of the resolution is Craig true Trulia he told me that was the way to pronounce it Craig truly.

I gave me the thumbs up. So I know that I did that. Well, mr. Trulia is a prominent Eastern Orthodox writer apologist and content creator. He's the voice behind Orthodox Christian theology a popular platform dedicated to Christian missions in Cambodia.

He's published academically on the subjects of myriology the papacy Dynasty and corpus and has produced films on the history of the Great Schism and Christian iconography. Denying the resolution is dr. James white.

Dr. White's a reformed Baptist theologian author and Christian apologist. He is the director of Alpha and Omega ministries in Phoenix, Arizona and the host of the dividing line. He's written more than 20 books and has taken part in more than 200 Moderated public debates on theology scripture and the claims of other religious traditions.

He serves as the pastor and elder at Apologia Church. That said let me give you a few rules. As far as lay out of the land and the like out out the back door and to your right are the restrooms. If you need to make a make a beeline that way.

Avail yourselves there. I want you to also by way of decorum silence all phones by putting them away. Check them now so that we don't have an outburst during the debate. That's definitely a challenge for our debaters.

Do not applaud boo cheer or react audibly during speeches or questioning. A time for applause will definitely be offered at the end Of the debate. I do not call out interrupt or address speakers from the floor at the Break, please remain seated until both debaters have left the room.

I believe that is the end of our introductions with that. We'll have opening statements. This will be a 50 minute session 25 minutes for mr. Trulia and then Dr. White will have 25 minutes. So gentlemen, if you're ready, just got to get that technology hooked up one second.

Dead airs horrible radio, right? All right, let's go. Years ago. I used to hang on you're everywhere to pastor white. Now we're arguing with each other. Passed away. You've become my wife. It is good.

Craig Truglia's Opening Statement: The Case for Apostolic Icon Veneration

We're starting light. Because in this debate pastor white is Apollo Creed. I'm Rocky. He's the season champion. I have no professional debating experience. He has the tactfulness and experience. My left hook is this.

The doctrine of Nicaea to is actually found in scripture in history. I Asked the audience here for just one thing believe facts rather than words. Methodology is paramount. Pastor will need to use his skills to frame his arguments words and questions in such a way so that you don't believe your own eyes.

He has to because he needs to prove the absence of something. Honestly, I don't envy pastors position. Decide with any evidence whatsoever. It's historically the more credible side. If this debate was let's say did Lincoln own a green shirt.

The argument against thesis is a bunch of whatabout isms. He said he didn't like green here scholars used to think he didn't like green Etc. The argument in favor just needs one thing. Photographic archaeological or testimonial evidence of Lincoln with the green shirt and Sadly for pastor despite my weakness as a debater.

My side has the green shirt. Here's a green shirt and another and another and another and another. I Could keep going but we must point out we cannot have an arbitrary burden of proof. The burden necessary to demonstrate Nicaea to must be the same as I demonstrate any other topic.

We only need a few sources with geographic dispersion and Archaeological corroboration to conclude that I kind of Julia likely is part of apostolic Christian orthodoxy. This suffices to provide us with moral certainty on the basis that the Anti-nice seed evidence the proof that I see too is correct is stronger than the Apostles taught a 66 book canon.

Penal atonement or against polygamy and gambling all things both pastor and myself except is morally certain. Why? Unlike the proceeding every explicit piece of anti-nice seed evidence we have Indicates that one the majority of Christians both approved of and to venerated icons.

It is not good enough to counter Christians do not like pagan art. Neither do Orthodox today Nicaea to is correct because the anti-nice seed evidence Explicitly dictates that the Apostles permitted and employed the veneration of icons.

We have no evidence zero of the contrary. Pastor needs to infer that they didn't he has his words. I have facts. Historically the side with any facts wins the side with zero facts loses believe facts rather than words.

Art historians the specialists in this topic acknowledge anti-nice scene. I kind of Julia Matthews and Muller. We believe that the cultic use of panel paintings was a continuous tradition from antiquity to Christianity.

Icons were intimately connected with the origins and growth of Christianity itself. Yakob Avoochie. The honoring of painted portraits and their adornment with garlands and the early stages of Christian art should not be ruled out.

Marcin Gil. It was earlier than the late 4th century indeed as early as this second century when the first portraits of Christian holy persons were made and venerated. Luth. There is virtually no evidence of any Christian reaction against veneration of icons.

Which tells against any idea that such a veneration was his son in innovation in the 6th century or even the 4th? Finney. The Callistus paintings reflect the primitive tradition of funerary prayer. Harley McGowan.

Sometime in the late 2nd early 3rd century the maker of an amulet used the model of an explicit depiction of Jesus crucified. Close analysis of the Invocational language has suggested that the inscription and the image Functioned closely together for the wearer of the gemstone as a means of seeking redemption.

The image of the crucifixion was already an integral part of the celebration of the soteriological power of the cross of Christians. Leatherberry. Images of the most important figures in the heavenly hierarchies such as Christ could serve as channels for personal and communal devotion.

Elsner. Portraits of Saints for example the gold glass medallions of Christ and a number of Saints from the Roman catacombs have no narrative context. There is every possibility that these kinds of images were put to private devotional use whether in a funerary context where the surviving materials are found in a liturgical space or in a domestic arena.

Kenny. These paintings offered a target Possibly even conduit for prayer. Hornick. Both Jews and Christians were neither an iconic nor icon a phobic. Sculptures were not worshipped but were viewed during prayer.

Spire. Iconographic gems are engraved with specifically Christian exorcistic text. They contain no magic words or references to pagan deities and may be considered Orthodox Cousin. Christian images on the other hand could be prized and Venerated for their cultic or spiritual function quite apart from any judgment concerning the excellence of their appearance.

Jensen. At least some Christians appear to adore images of the cross with or without the corpus. There are many more scholars who affirm at kind of Julia after Nicaea. Honestly the scholarly consensus Among art historians in the 21st century is that Christians had images and they were devotional.

But this is an appeal to authorities. Which is a logical fallacy, but I point this out because I have 15 minutes to now sum up both scholarship and my own research. I kind of Julia is more than praying towards icons.

The doctrine is broader. Icons are media that work miracles. They are apotropaic. They act as windows to a prototype so that our veneration and prayers pass on to the one depicted. They are objects due to what they represent that are holy in of themselves.

We can find all these things that ancient Orthodox Judaism to anti-nicene Christianity. Judaism was mostly an an iconic religion, but there were two main exceptions. First the depiction of things that people really saw.

The second commandment forbade the depiction of foreign objects of worship, but it did not forbid the depiction of angels are living creatures. Angels have appeared to man it could be depicted. In fact, they must be depicted as God commanded to see to it that you make them according to the pattern.

Which he was was shown to you on the mountain. Exodus 25. 2nd the scriptures permitted the depiction of types. Protestant audiences know little about typology, but the Apostles took typological interpretation for granted.

Exodus Leviticus first Kings Ezekiel don't have a bunch of useless boring details about the tabernacle and temple. These building items have typological significance that foreshadow God. In short. The Ark the Covenant is Jesus.

The lampstand is the Holy Spirit. The empty space above the Ark is the Invisible Father. The curtain surroundings represent the womb at the Theotokos. The tabernacle and temple are incarnational. Not surprisingly the scriptures themselves explicitly state that these typological icons were venerated.

Psalm 99 5 states exalt the Lord our God and venerate his footstool the Ark. Here the typological icon of the Lord receives veneration. First Kings 830 states the icon can receive prayer. They shall pray Toward this place and thou shalt here in the dwelling place in heaven and thou shalt do and be gracious.

Jerome an ancient knowledgeable of Judaism observed that the Jews reverence the Holy of Holies because the things contained in it. Which included the cherubim and the Ark? These icons were not just venerated and received prayer, but they had their power.

Through prayer the Nicaea to doctrine the serpent in the wilderness was an obvious type of Christ that was venerated. The epistle of Barnabas a first century Christian source calls the Apotreic serpent a type of Jesus and States let him hope and believe if the serpent is able to give him life.

This interpretation matches that of a Jewish Targum on Numbers which states that the serpent of brass was gazed at and his heart was in 10 upon the name of the word the Lord He lived. Further the Jews employed a literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 6 8 and making another at the tropaic object the phylactery.

In fact, the oldest archaeologically preserved phylactery is from the 7th century BC. These items bound scriptures to the wearer the scriptures being a representative type of the prototype God. They were spoken of approvingly by the 2nd century st. Justin martyr and is a known fact that unlike ancient pagan apotropa ism with amulets.

These items power was derived to the prayer to the prototype the Nicaea to doctrine. The mezuzah also found that Qumran Functioned identically, but instead of being worn it was posted and kissed like Christian icons.

Today historical evidence buttresses the proceeding. First Archaeology has proven the Hezekiah the destroyer of pagan idols was not so OCD That he neglected the use of the Assyrian God as sure without the DDS face to represent Yahweh in his royal seal.

This demonstrates that the Jewish objection to images was based upon their pagan use and depictions of their deities. Not a rightful Jewish use. Second from the same era near the Temple Mount was found an apotropaic object with a cherubim portrayed.

Archaeologists believe the image was intended to convey With Hezekiah convey association with Hezekiah himself. Unlike the invisible God the cherubim were able to be depicted. Third a fourth century BC coin from Jerusalem's official mint Pictures the angel Lord or simply a cherubim.

Further the angelic liturgy of Qumran a document likely used in the Jewish Temple calls depictions of the angels in the temple living an iconic Dulek doctrine. Scholars recognize that it was believed at the temple that the architecture was alive.

No one describes arts or buildings this way without a type prototype distinction. Which demonstrates that Judaism adhered to Nicaea twos doctrine. Now we have demonstrated that the scriptures and historians are aware that what is now called Icon of Julia pre-existed Christianity and manifested itself on an official Orthodox basis as it is found among Hezekiah and his nobility in official Jerusalem currency as well as in the temple itself.

What changed with Christianity? Before Christ the Saints were not yet in heaven according to 1st Peter 4 6 after the crucifixion Saints resurrected in Jerusalem who appeared to very many according to Matthew 27 Christ pillaged Hades and now those souls and the incarnate God himself were capable of depiction.

This is why while pre-christian icon of Julia is typological and angelic. Post-christian icon of Julia is still angelic and typological Orthodox still use symbols that crosses and menorahs. But with additional depictions of all the members of the church who are now alive in heaven.

Implicit in that kind of Julia is another doctrine, which is not the topic of this debate. Prayer to the Saints. It suffices to say that God is not the God of the dead. But the God of the living as it says in Mark 12 and scholarship has identified 22 separate writing writers who have recorded prayers that can be dated before Nicea.

There are about 200 authors whose works could be dated before Nicea. This means about 11 of extant offers wrote about prayers to the Saints. Compare this to Christian books. Calm a quick search reveals that 1 of their books are about prayer.

So it is false to claim that such prayers were rare. Back then considering that most authors don't publish on prayer at all today. Indeed. Most prayers are not published at all. So we have to think outside the box.

To infer the scale of prayer to the Saints in antiquity. When we stick our noses out of stuffy books and old treatises and look at anti-nicene inscriptions found at grave sites and church ruins. Locations more likely to include recorded intercessory prayer.

We literally have 500 at just one site. 500 separate prayers this is about three times more than all the authors and anonymous of Anti-nicene Christian literature combined three times more. 2 .5 want to be exact.

But anyway, some claim we don't have enough icons. Hundreds surviving from before Nicene runes and catacombs aren't enough. Ask yourself. How many churches do we have from before Nicaea that even have walls and ceilings?

I Count 31. They're probably more but I'm not an archaeologist. There is Duryrapis and it's covered with icons. There are 29 different catacombs that also function as churches due to the Eucharist and baptism being celebrated there 22 have surviving pre-nicene icons.

There's also John the Lateran built in 324 though extensively renovated still has Christ depicted on its original apps 24. 77 percent have icons and that's despite the ravages of time crumbling the walls and ceilings alone.

The loss of portraiture. Archaeologically, I kind of do. Leah is an open and shut case. Archaeology also indicates a canography existed at the beginning. We already saw the first century icon of Solomon from Pompeii.

Pompeii also has what appears to be a Christian altar complete with a cross perhaps originally in the Crucifix style. Beginning to perhaps 81 AD according to Rutgers et al. The catacomb of Callistus has several icons.

Of Orin's and praying figures. Its tombs include nine pre-nicene popes indicating its doctrinally normative quality. Orin images are found throughout the whole Christian world and are acknowledged by scholarship to prompt prayer to what they are directed towards a.

Good example of this is the icon of the Good Shepherd from the catacombs of Priscilla as you could see. Now look at the Orin's eyes. Look at her hands as well as the three youths on the side the same catacomb.

Don't believe me Don't believe Ellsner that says these were put to devotional use if it was not obvious enough that the point of this art was to Direct the Christian to pray towards the icon of the Good Shepherd.

Here is a third century signet ring with Daniel the lion's head praying towards the Good Shepherd. There is a reason why a consensus of art historians agree as cited previously. That early Christian art was employed consistently With Nicaea to doctrine of icons.

It was instantly recognizable what the purpose of the art was believe facts rather than words. What is not instantly recognizable is the style of the art Jesus looks like Orpheus and the artist not realistic.

But people fail to recognize and that Christian art inherited a legacy from Jewish typology and symbolism. After all, even the cherubim themselves were not literal depictions with their two wings. Not matching the vision of Ezekiel where they have four.

So Jewish and the earliest Christian art was always symbolic and not intended to be an accurate depiction. Interestingly pagan art aims for realism and this conveys a different understanding of the art.

The pagans thought their depictions were inhabited with the spirits of actual deities. While Christian saw art as an express extension of symbols and the power was not through an inhabiting spirit but through participatory faith like the phylactery.

Icons only gained their recent Orthodox look in the fourth and fifth centuries. Due to new converts not understanding who was portrayed in the highly symbolic art to prevent confusion iconographers made the depictions more realistic though still combining overtly symbolic elements such as halos and according to Pithanius or Epiphanides a fourth century writer Identified icons of inscriptions written on each side of the images.

He even said that the majority of bishops he spoke to Said that we make images of the Saints in their memory and we prostrate ourselves in front of them in their honor the majority. These were certainly small Oh Orthodox bishops because in Rome the catacombs were turned.

Had Roman bishops and likewise had icons without any controversy now don't believe Epiphanius believe your own eyes. The fourth century icon of st. Lawrence literally has a prayer to st. Lawrence on it.

The written evidence accords with the archaeological evidence that icons originate from the first century and were venerated. We have two written sources interpreted literally that locate icons to the first century.

Paul's letter to the Galatians states to its audience that it was before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among u .s. Crucified in Galatians 3 1. That's literally what it says in the Greek translate English, of course.

Scholarship believes this cross was apotropaic. Dionysius the Areopagite a philosopher converted by Paul according to act 17 and whose corpus of writings Have been demonstrated to be authentic at best and predating 220 ad at worst writes that it is not Possible to contemplate the heavenly hierarchies without using the material guidance Appropriate for it where he lists icons among other material things.

We have two second century sources that explicitly explain how icons were used. The apocryphal acts of John's and not stick author Criticizes a person who lights lamps before and crowns an icon. Irenaeus at one point Neutrally observes a Nasa group that crowns images of Christ only then to criticize them for other modes of honoring these images.

A Epiphanius admits that it was sacrificial and unnamed Probably sexual acts that are being critiqued. Indicating these were the well-known other modes. These Gnostics were criticized for not the crowning of icons themselves.

Marson Gill gives a telling interpretation of these sources. Noting that it is clear that the second century saw the use of Christian portraits. Perhaps only a few and that these could be venerated though.

These behaviors might not yet be within the bounds of official Christianity. What is clear and incontrovertible was that Christians had icons and they were venerated. Exactly the nice co2 doctrine. What is not clear to Marson Gill is how many and how orthodoxies practice were.

That's the unclear part but considering that most anti-nicene churches have them and That we could confirm that these churches housing bishops remains were within the bounds of official Christianity.

And that the Gnostic who wrote the critique against icons Was not within official Christianity. We have no reason to doubt the ubiquity and orthodoxy of icons. This is the importance of studying both history and archaeology believe facts rather than words.

Before my opponent says this reasonable inference is lacking in antiquity. Let's take a look at Eusebius the church's first great historian who grew up in the third century and provides us an early archaeological analysis of his own.

He asserts that an image of the hemorrhaging woman praying to Christ Was made by Gentiles who were once benefited from the Savior according to their own ethnic habit. There's nary a negative evaluation of an image which he sees as pre-apostolic in origin.

But rather a positive affirmation that healing was caused from a plant at Christ's feet which implies people bent down and touched the bottom of Christ's cloak and Just like the woman that the plant was pictured being near his cloak a veneration practice.

This is not just my inference. Jensen a leading scholar of early Christian art likewise infers that Eusebius was reporting that honoring and Veneration were performed by Christians to that statue. We have further evidence in Eusebius commentary on Luke.

That he did not view these images negatively he writes. They say that this statue bore the image of Jesus and that Maximinus made a small addition to his impiety by destroying it. Eusebius considered the destruction of this image impious, which is only possible if he approved of the image.

It should not be no wonder that a century later the historian Sazoman records the fragments of this destroyed statue were recovered and venerated. Now consider the anti-Nicene evidence which due to time I've only been able to cover in part Christian icons existed.

They are preserved from the first century. They contain aspects and sometimes literal words which make it undeniable that they were venerated. The written evidence from both official and heterodox sources Confirms the same.

None of this should surprise us because the theology of veneration comes from Jewish practice and when the first Explicit comment is made as to the images ubiquity in the 4th century. The claim is that most bishops affirmed icon of Julia believe facts rather than words and It's not good enough for my opponent to exclude one piece of evidence here or offer a figurative as opposed to a literal Interpretation of a text there.

He has to categorically exclude almost all the evidence all the green shirts, which is not possible. It is not good enough to invoke text by Christian apologists against pagan images. Well, my opponent needs to demonstrate is that these apologists opposed Christian images being that we have no doubt they existed.

It is not good enough to invoke ancient Christians categorically opposed to Christian and imagery. Because our best example the Pythagoras or Pythagoras admits that he's in the minority. But the majority affirmed a kind of Julia.

I kind of Julia is a necessary practice that offers Continuity with the creation and testament of images from the time of Moses. This practice offers us an increased connection with God his angels and his saints by whose grace and prayers we are saved from our sin and may partakers the divine nature as Paul reminds us if Anyone preaches another gospel to you than what you've received.

Let him be accursed with that. I see my time.

James White's Opening Statement: The Apostolic Claim and the Meaning of Nicaea II

That's I'm not sure why this is not showing up. Here we go, I guess the system is not seeing The.

All right. What we'll have to do is do this mechanically. All right. Well, you have to look over there now. Oh. Well, that's that's how things work. All right, let's get started here. Well, good morning, and thank you for being here this morning.

I Promised to talk a little more slowly. I want you to be with me and when we get to the end and Hopefully focus things just a little bit more is icon veneration as defined at Nicaea 2. Here's the problem we never heard how it's defined at Nicaea 2 and That's what you need to understand right at the start here.

Okay? Nicaea 2 Anathematizes anyone who refuses to kiss the icon? So it is a dogmatic reality the first session they anathematized everybody Kicked the other side out that would deny the propriety of Kissing the icon venerating the icon based upon a particular formula that was mentioned by.

Mr Trulia about ten minutes into his presentation. He didn't define where it came from but he used it and so what you need to understand is From Nicaea 2's perspective. This is not a maybe this is not a possibility.

This is not something you quote art historians about. Without doing this you're separated from the grace of God. You are anathema. Okay, so that's sort of important. We didn't have a definition of what veneration is.

We didn't have anything like that. That's gonna fall to me for this to be understandable. So one word decides this debate Apostolic Apostolic not eventually widespread later beloved. Formally defined possibly seen in an art historian here or something like that.

No Apostolic originating with the Apostles or transmitted without a documentable break from them. Now Nicaea 2 is in 787 nearly 800 years have passed since the birth of Christ. That's a long period of time a lot of stuff got written during that time.

Do we have clear evidence that the idea of the necessity? Not just a possibility of having a picture in your home that has nothing to do with this. It's irrelevant. That's not what Nicaea 2 is talking about.

Nicaea 2 told us that it was apostolic teaching that you must reverence icons. You must venerate them. Did we hear any evidence of that? We heard nothing at all. That's what is amazing. To me you have to have a definition to start with.

Okay, who's burden and how heavy a Strong historical claim does not get to borrow a weak standard of evidence. Just because the record is thin. Today's honest question isn't is a continuity story plausible or possible or maybe a historian sees this or maybe historians.

He's that does the evidence actually say what he needs it to say. I Don't know how anybody could keep up with all the references. They came at you so fast and so many of them had questions about when the actual dating is and.

So you have to go back and look at a whole lot of that kind of stuff. But that is the real question three reasons that the answer is no. I guess I should be look both directions make it even this way three reasons.

The question is no one the silence two centuries of Christian material culture without the one thing this debate needs and. That is clear explicit statements that you are to do this. The Apostles taught us to do this.

You would think you'd have entire sermons if that were the case. You've got nothing nothing at all. You have Equivocation then we have the equivocation. The councils own proof text from Basel on the Holy Spirit 1845 which was used but it wasn't identified in its own original argument is not what it's not about images at all and.

The council's own record what Nicaea to Had to explain away and they do explain away. Tells us what the tradition actually looked like at the particular point in time. First the Bible as apostolic deposit.

Here is the apostolic deposit. This is what defines it now. We did we are we are gonna have to. It's not my time to do a refutation here. But we are gonna have to look at some of the examples that were given though they don't fit into anything relevant to Nicaea to his doctrine of veneration, but Jude 3 tells us exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

So this has to be something that the New Testament Apostles taught to the first generation that you are to make icons and you are to venerate them of Martyrs and Apostles and the Theotokos and things like that.

Okay, so this is what it would be to be apostolic. The many attempts to distinguish levels of worship veneration honor etc found throughout church history. Founder on a basic consideration there should have been obvious those using deception worship and service are intimately connected.

You cannot worship without serving the Hebrew term avad is Rendered by the Greek Septuagint in many ways and it defies the worship service. Distinction that became traditional in later centuries that may come up.

It may not we'll see. If it does we will find out. Second Nicaea to his political theater. This didn't come up at all. Nothing about the nature of the of the council came up. History shows the second I seen council of 787 was ultimately political in origination character.

Empress Irene and iconophile she venerated icons. Wished to overturn the preceding material position of iconoclasm and she set about to do so ruthlessly. She elevated her chief imperial secretary Tarasio's to the position of ecumenical patriarch in a single week a politician became the chief cleric in Constantinople in one week and.

And it was such so grossly irregular and fraudulent action even Pope Hadrian complained about it. His primary purpose was to call an ecumenical council to establish icon veneration and he ran the council very Efficiently, there are many good reasons to reject Nicaea to his ecumenical on the basis of many standards.

And it should be noted that acceptance of his ecumenical status was slow in coming and Rome's acceptance Was primarily prompted by political realities and a desire to get back papal lands. Studies have shown That the evidences called flora legium adduced and Nicaea to were not only late But fraught and by the way, they didn't use almost anything that mr. Trulia just used in their argumentation in defining this very dogma.

But fraught with forgery and what the Libri Carolini in later years called Apocryphal Apocryphal absurdities. One such story is that of someone being cured by paint scraped from the cosmos and Damien wall painting for example.

That such evidence produces dogma in the Christian faith is truly troubling should be troubling to you. But must also be understood that this was not a council which real debate took place. The first session the council was dedicated to one thing anathematizing the other side.

They anathematized and condemned in the very first session anyone who would have opposed the definition of venerating icons. That's not how you have a council. That is how you get rid of the other side and establish one particular perspective and that's exactly what took place now the silence.

What does exist for example in the second century? Was the second century left behind? Well, we have funerary inscriptions. We saw all about those. We have the Abertius inscription that may have been mentioned but maybe said so quickly.

I didn't catch it. We have Clemens approved seal symbols. We did see some seals a fish and anchor and a dove. Nobody denies any of these things. What we don't have is a single securely dated instance of Prostration or kissing before a portrait icon member of notice what says securely dated much of what was presented.

The question is when it was dated. Is it even Christian? Is it not Christian? And I would add to what is absent a sermon a statement. Something from the early church saying this is what we do. Let's talk about it.

They talked about the Eucharist. They talk about baptism. They talk about all sorts of dogmatic things. We can find the deity of Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit and all sorts of things like that.

What we don't find is this no one ever preached a sermon on. Why would that be the case? That is a real question. You'll notice the Christ with whom we have to do is the risen and glorified Christ. Whom we are not able to depict.

Eusebius accessory a letter to Constantia in the fourth century. Nicea to his own answer in 787 was to dismiss Eusebius himself as a heretic. Not the argument answered the messenger disqualified, but there you have a direct statement.

But I would like to suggest to you right now from what I've heard so far any Reference whatsoever to an image art Icon anything will be taken in one of two ways if it's negative that proves everybody believed it.

If it's positive that proves everybody believed it. There is no possibility of having evidence against the thesis when you interpret things in that way. And I'm going to be asking what would be negative evidence?

What would you accept as evidence against the thesis because so far? Even when the Gnostics this was in Irenaeus even when the Gnostics Condemned this well, that's taken as evidence that that's what all the Christians were doing.

You trust the Gnostics to know what all Christians are doing. It's pretty astonishing that that actually is being used. I have often said the images ought to be removed, but I have not been accepted. Nor were they ready to listen to me even briefly.

This was just mentioned right toward the end of mr. Trulia's presentation. Interestingly enough Mr. Trulia accepts that as being valid Nicaea to didn't they call them forgeries alien foreign but Richard Price who is The one who translated the acts of the Council of Nicaea back in and this was published only in 2020.

Richard Price says manifestly not an iconic Iconoclast forgery, so it seems like mr. Trulia accepts prices understanding of this and Rejects Nicaea to's argumentation on this particular subject, but here is the real issue, and I hope I have enough time here.

Here's the equivocation honor passes to the archetype. Here you if you go online right now look at any presentation is made from the East North Oxford perspective. What you're gonna see is this principle the honor passes to the archetype.

Mr Trulia specifically mentioned that phraseology about 10 or 11 minutes into his presentation. I made a note of it. Here's where this is from. Around 375 AD Basil is defending the Holy Spirit prior to the Council of Constantinople in 381.

He is writing against the people who do not want the Holy Spirit to be to be seen in the same way as the father and the son from the Council of Nicaea and so he uses an illustration about images of emperors in 1845.

The image of the Emperor is also called the Emperor and not two emperors for his power is not divided and his glory is not partitioned for just as the rule and authority that controls us is one so the glorification we utter is One and not multiple because the honor paid to the image passes over to the archetype.

There is the phrase You cannot have Nicaea twos doctrine of Icon I kind of Julia or the veneration of icons without that line That was picked up by John Damascus. It's quoted at Nicaea to in this context.

Because the honor paid to the image passes over to the archetype make a note of this Notice the context this is this is Richard Richard Price speaking the context is that the Sun as the image of the father according to scriptures Colossians 115 is Truly consubstantial with the father and not inferior to him.

The topic is not Religious images. I challenge anybody in this room. You can find it online. It's available a simple Google search any AI will pull it up for you. Read Basil's section on the Holy Spirit 18 start at 44 read through 45 read through 46 get the context and you will see that Nicaea's twos use of this and modern Eastern Orthodoxy's use of this phrase is Completely illegitimate.