This is an ongoing project that will expand over time.

“What about the Dura Europos paintings?”

Most of the paintings that people see online which go under the name “Dura Europos” are from the synagogue a few buildings down the street, not from the house church. We are well aware that the Jews began to make images in synagogues in the 100s, as the Talmud says. It was condemned. But imagine being in the shoes of a Cathodox, who desperately wants to find evidence that image-worship is lawful, and their only recourse is to use the example of the Christ-murdering Jews as an excuse! The very ones who are being condemned for disobeying the laws of Israel, being incessant idolaters, and stubbornly refusing to worship in spirit and in truth! Yes, they’re experts on Christian worship.

The wall paintings from the Dura-Europos house church (circa A.D. 232–256) were located on the walls of the baptistery, a small room in the northwest corner of the building. There were no images found in the main meeting room found on the opposite side of the building, which completely contradicts the idea that these images were being venerated during the liturgy. Why wouldn’t they be in the main meeting room, but instead be limited to a room across the building, past a dividing courtyard, in a little room that only a handful of people could fit in? Multiple times, the original excavators referred to it as a “little room” (Clark Hopkins, The Discovery of Dura Europos, page 90). The baptistry would not have been in constant use, since most baptisms in the church were performed at Pascha, only once a year!

“Dura is the best, dated between 232/3 and 256, as early or earlier than any comparable Christian structure. It illustrates vividly the position and stage of development of the sect under Severan rule. The best preserved, it offers the first view of a Christian chapel as part of the Christian community, and the first cycle of murals in the setting of a baptistery” (Clark Hopkins, The Discovery of Dura Europos, page 93).

“When the building was devoted to Christian use, two rooms on the south side were thrown together to make an assembly hall, and the northwest room was transformed into the Chapel by the addition of the baptismal font and paintings of biblical scenes” (Clark Hopkins, The Discovery of Dura Europos, page 94).

Every room was meticulously inspected, but only one room in the whole house had pictures (the baptistry), and its pictures depicted only Biblical scenes (Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, the miracles of Jesus, etc.), not at all in the style of Cathodox idols.

It seems more likely that whoever made the pictures in the baptistry was trying to abide by the church’s law (upheld by the Council of Elvira) which forbade images to be drawn on the walls of the church’s gathering place! Since these were house-churches, that law wouldn’t apply to every single room of a house, but only the room where the congregation gathered, just as the Letter of Epiphanius to Theodosius makes a distinction between the church and the baptistry: “… all these [images], being collected from churches or baptisteries….” It seems the council of Elvira was not forbidding putting images in baptisteries or martyria (i.e. tombs/reliquaries) were not as big of a cause for concern, since liturgy didn’t take place there, and the danger is always in worshiping the images, not merely seeing them.

What’s more is that this room would have been used very rarely, considering most baptisms were performed during Pascha.

There is no evidence that anyone was bowing to those images or offering them incense as the Cathodox do, so this is not evidence for image-veneration. But even if there were evidence that some group of Christians was engaged in those acts, would that automatically prove that it’s the teaching of the universal church? The answer is no, because we know the Gnostic sect bowed to images and offered incense to them, and the early church condemned the Gnostics for that very reason.

Even if there were any proof that the people at the Dura Europos church were bowing to and praying to these images, you’re saying these paintings prove that there were icon-worshipers somewhere in church history? Well, that’s no surprise! We already knew that! We’re well aware that there were heretical sects of image-worshipers in the early church. That’s who the church fathers are condemning! You’re telling us that there were groups in church history who worshiped images as if we didn’t already know that. That’s what we’re telling YOU! We’re telling you that the early church already refuted that heresy! Telling us that you found the group they condemned, and then identifying yourself with that group, only proves that you are Gnostic heretics! The existence of image-worshipers in that time period is not a clear mandate to worship images, but a choice between following the example of those nameless people from an unknown sect OR the unanimous teaching of the church fathers for the first 500 years.

Your entire method of finding the church’s teachings is ridiculous. Tell me, what is the best source to receive instruction about church doctrine? Whenever we have a question about doctrine, are we expected to consult murals in catacombs, or paintings underneath churches? Christian doctrine does not originate from paintings made by nameless people, nor do paintings have any influence in establishing the rules of Christian living. If we wish to learn about the Christian faith, we must consult the scriptures and the earliest universal consensus of the church fathers!

It’s amazing how, whenever heretics hear the church fathers’ unanimous teaching on a subject, they’ll retort, “That was just their personal opinion!” but when they encounter some stupid painting made by a random, nameless person, they’ll say, “This was the universal practice of the church!” As if we couldn’t read the testimony of the fathers for ourselves to see what the church’s doctrine actually is!

You were given that mural as a test to see if you would believe the truth or a lie. There must be heresies, so that those who are approved may be evident. You can either believe the unanimous teaching of the fathers contained in the first 500 years of church history, or you can speculate that people were worshiping some images you found (which were made by unknown people, in an unknown sect), and that these people had the authority to override the entire unanimous church’s condemnation of image-worship.

• There’s no proof that anyone was worshiping those images
• Even if anyone was worshiping them, it was condemned by the fathers as a Gnostic/pagan practice
• We don’t know what sect these churches were part of
• The Cathodox forbid depicting Jesus as shaved
• The Cathodox forbid depicting Jesus in the image of Greek gods (Dionysius, Hermes, etc.)
• The Cathodox forbid the veneration of images made for private use (consecration is required)
• In other words, even the Cathodox denounce these images as pagan and insulting to Christ, and would forbid anyone to venerate them

“The church honored relics!”

The Greek word they translate as “relic” is λειψάνου, meaning “remnant” or “remains,” derived from the ancient Greek verb leipein (λείπειν), meaning “to leave” or “to leave behind.”

As the church fathers frequently point out, one of the fundamental differences between the bodies of the saints and a lifeless painting is that a painting was never alive, nor will it ever be, but the body of a saint WAS alive in the past, and it will be alive again in the future. That body actually belongs to the person whose soul has departed, and it will be restored to them someday. We show respect for the possessions of any person who died; how much more do we show respect to the BODY of that person, which is an actual part of them that shares their very nature!

The Cathodox are aware that there are no church fathers in the first 500 years who support bowing to images and offering them incense, but on the contrary, they all condemn it as idolatry. So the Cathodox use the only thing left in their arsenal of lies: they’ll appeal to the honoring of the saints’ bodies (calling these “relics” in order to be more ambiguous and broaden the scope of what’s allowed to be embraced affectionately), and they’ll say this is the same as icon-worship! But this is more evidence against their position, since we can show that men like John Chrysostom, Augustine, Epiphanius, and Eusebius of Caesarea all showed great respect to the bodies of the saints, as well as miracle-working relics, and yet they still forbade anyone to bow down to images or burn incense to them. How pathetic! You’re so desperate for validation that you have to go to the very iconoclasts themselves to provide evidence for the honoring of relics, as if they conflated worshiping lifeless images with showing honor to the actual bodies of saints!

The Cathodox are only solidifying our point, that it is possible to show respect to the bodies of the saints while STILL refraining from worshiping images. God forbade the worship of images. He didn’t forbid showing affection to the bodies of the saints. No matter how much you insist these two things are identical, you can’t escape the fact that the fathers DID see a difference and forbade image-worship.

“But words are images!”

The Cathodox will point to all the places where the church fathers say words are pictures so as to confuse all the spectators of this debate. If they can convince you that EVERYTHING is an image, and that EVERYTHING is veneration (even drinking from a cup or looking at an object), then it will seem like everyone who refuses to venerate images is a hypocrite. Very clever! But also stupid. If EVERYTHING is an image and EVERYTHING is veneration, then what in the world is God even forbidding? If God commanded the Israelites not to make ANY image, then were they breaking His commandment just by having books?

The Jews called every image and statue made by man an abomination. – John Chrysostom, Discourse 5 Against Judaizing Christians, Section 10 (Fathers of the Church vol. 68:134-135)

The church fathers very explicitly say that God forbade the Israelites from making ANY image, so to say they were making images the whole time just by writing words is absurd! On the other hand, the fathers DO sometimes use metaphorical language in regard to words, saying that they form images IN OUR MINDS.

Actually, Moses and all the prophets were long dead in the body, but in their writings they had them. After all, if a person sets up a lifeless image of son or dear one and thinks that person, though dead, is present, and through the lifeless image he imagines him, much more do we enjoy the communion of the saints through the divine Scriptures, having in them images not of their bodies but of their souls, the words spoken by them being of their very souls. – John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Psalms, Homily on Psalm 146

God specifically restricts the creation of graven images (carvings, statues) and likenesses (visual representations of physical forms). To equate a physical, manufactured image (crafted by human hands out of wood or paint) with a concept formed in the mind when reading text is a fundamental category error. Words are abstract mental images, not hand-crafted likenesses of bodies. God forbade the Israelites from making paintings and statues, not from writing books.

Acts of John:

Here is Acts of John, obliterating the Cathodox. A man makes a painting of John and is rebuked for it, being called childish, heathenish, etc.

26 There came together therefore a gathering of a great multitude on John’s account; and as he discoursed to them that were there, Lycomedes, who had a friend who was a skilful painter, went hastily to him and said to him: You see me in a great hurry to come to you: come quickly to my house and paint the man whom I show you without his knowing it. And the painter, giving some one the necessary implements and colours, said to Lycomedes: Show him to me, and for the rest have no anxiety. And Lycomedes pointed out John to the painter, and brought him near him, and shut him up in a room from which the apostle of Christ could be seen. And Lycomedes was with the blessed man, feasting on the faith and the knowledge of our God, and rejoiced yet more in the thought that he should possess him in a portrait.

27 The painter, then, on the first day made an outline of him and went away. And on the next he painted him in with his colours, and so delivered the portrait to Lycomedes to his great joy. And he took it and set it up in his own bedchamber and hung it with garlands: so that later John, when he perceived it, said to him: My beloved child, what is it that thou always doest when thou comest in from the bath into thy bedchamber alone? do not I pray with thee and the rest of the brethren? Or is there something thou art hiding from us? And as he said this and talked jestingly with him, he went into the bedchamber, and saw the portrait of an old man crowned with garlands, and lamps and altars set before it. And he called him and said: Lycomedes, what meanest thou by this matter of the portrait? Can it be one of thy gods that is painted here? For I see that thou art still living in heathen fashion. And Lycomedes answered him: My only God is he who raised me up from death with my wife: but if, next to that God, it be right that the men who have benefited us should be called gods – it is thou, father, whom I have had painted in that portrait, whom I crown and love and reverence as having become my good guide.

28 And John who had never at any time seen his own face said to him: Thou mockest me, child: am I like that in form, [excelling] thy Lord? How canst thou persuade me that the portrait is like me? And Lycomedes brought him a mirror. And when he had seen himself in the mirror and looked earnestly at the portrait, he said: As the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, the portrait is like me: yet not like me, child, but like my fleshly image; for if this painter, who hath imitated this my face, desireth to draw me in a portrait, he will be at a loss, [needing more than] the colours that are now given to thee, and boards and plaster and glue, and the position of my shape, and old age and youth and all things that are seen with the eye.

29 But do thou become for me a good painter, Lycomedes. Thou hast colours which he giveth thee through me, who painteth all of us for himself, even Jesus, who knoweth the shapes and appearances and postures and dispositions and types of our souls. And the colours wherewith I bid thee paint are these: faith in God, knowledge, godly fear, friendship, communion, meekness, kindness, brotherly love, purity, simplicity, tranquillity, fearlessness, griefiessness, sobriety, and the whole band of colours that painteth the likeness of thy soul, and even now raiseth up thy members that were cast down, and levelleth them that were lifted up, and tendeth thy bruises, and healeth thy wounds, and ordereth thine hair that was disarranged, and washeth thy face, and chasteneth thine eyes, and purgeth thy bowels, and emptieth thy belly, and cutteth off that which is beneath it; and in a word, when the whole company and mingling of such colours is come together, into thy soul, it shall present it to our Lord Jesus Christ undaunted, whole, and firm of shape. But this that thou hast now done is childish and imperfect: thou hast drawn a dead likeness of the dead.

The Cathodox make these arguments:

First, they say that this book is clearly written by Gnostics, and that the condemnation of image-veneration must be Gnostic in origin (based on the assumption that Gnostics believed physical things are inherently evil, which must include icons). Thus, these Gnostics must be attacking the beliefs of Orthodox Christians. But all three of these assertions are wrong.

1. The Acts of John is not a single book, but rather a fragmentary collection of many stories, written at different times, possibly by different authors. Only a few episodes in the collection have Gnostic themes.
2. The Gnostics did not condemn the use of images! Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others testify that the Gnostics were well-known for worshiping images. In Recognitions of Clement, Simon Magus (the father of the Gnostics) says he’ll have an image made of himself so that he can be worshiped as a God, and he himself kept an image of a boy in his house to perform incantations!
3. It’s a baseless assumption to claim all criticism of image-worship must automatically be an attack on Orthodox Christian practice! We already established that the Gnostics worshiped images. But have you really forgotten that the pagans worshiped images for millennia? Could this not be a criticism of pagan converts to Christianity who want to venerate images of the saints? The story IS about a recent pagan-convert wanting to venerate images in the same way he once did as a pagan….

“Clement of Alexandria said we can have signet rings!”

And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a ship’s anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water. For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, following as we do, peace; nor drinking-cups, being temperate. – Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, book 3, chapter 11

Firstly, after bashing all of the early church fathers for rejecting image-worship, the Cathodox now run to their arch-enemies to provide evidence for image-worship! First they refuse to quote even a SINGLE ante-Nicene church father at Nicaea 2, all but declaring them to be staunch enemies of icon-worship, and then they want to play this game of pretending the early church fathers were actually icon-worshipers! So what are you saying, Cathodox? Was Clement of Alexandria an icon-worshiper against his own will and knowledge? Any reasonable person with an ounce of common sense is going to ask, “Is that really the best you’ve got? People are asking you to provide proof from the Scriptures or the early church fathers that God expects us to worship Him by bowing down to lifeless images and offering them sacrifices of incense. They’re deathly afraid that this is idolatry, just as it was in the Old Testament, and THIS is your BEST evidence? This joke of a response? Is this a prank?” What desperation! There is no greater evidence AGAINST image-worship than the evidence these people bring IN SUPPORT of it! It evokes nothing but outbursts of laughter, and deserves endless mockery.

Secondly, Clement of Alexandria makes NO mention of bowing to these images or offering them incense.

Thirdly, Clement does not recommend making signet rings with images of PEOPLE on them! His recommendations include a dove and inanimate objects. Can you believe it? He doesn’t even recommend a cross! This is the ultimate disappointment to the Cathodox.

Fourthly, Clement is telling Christians what kinds of images they ought to make for themselves (for practical use, obviously), which would eliminate the lawfulness of worshiping them. Why? Because the Cathodox do not allow their members to worship any old image they make for themselves! They may only worship “approved” icons that meet certain requirements! The Cathodox do not allow their members to worship images of a fish, or a musical lyre, or a ship, or an anchor! This is obviously NOT talking about making “holy icons.”

Fifthly, Clement forbids Christians from making signet rings of swords and bows, since we don’t fight in combat or use weapons, and yet some Orthodog dares use this to support their worship of “warrior saints,” who are depicted with weapons of war.

Sixthly, this is not the only time Clement talks about making rings with images on them. Elsewhere, he says no one should ever put an image of God on a ring!

“Let not the sun go down on your wrath,” says the Scripture. And He who said, “You shall not covet,” removed all resentment; for anger is found to be an impulse of desire in a gentle soul, disproportionately aimed at taking revenge. In like manner, sleep is advised to be disturbed, so that one may remember neither any dream nor daytime sleep, nor even the pleasure of the night. Perhaps he was also hinting that dark fantasy must be dispersed by the light of truth: “Be angry and do not sin,” says David, teaching that one must not consent to the imagination nor carry out the deed by ratifying anger. Again, “Do not sail on land,” is a Pythagorean symbol, signifying that one ought to avoid tax-farming and similar ventures, which are turbulent and unstable. For this reason, the Word says that tax collectors will be saved with difficulty. And again, “Don’t wear a ring, nor engrave on it the images of the gods,” commands Pythagoras—just as Moses also long ago explicitly legislated that no carved, molten, molded, or painted statue or likeness should be made, so that we do not cling to sensible things, but pass on to intelligible things. For familiarity with sight breeds contempt for the majesty of the divine, and to worship an immaterial essence through matter is to dishonor it through sense perception. Wherefore also the wisest of the Egyptian priests designated the seat of Athena to be in the open air, just as the Hebrews built their temple without an image. And there are some who, worshipping God, make a representation of the sky containing the stars and bow down (προσκυνοῦσιν) before it. – Clement of Alexandria (195 AD) The Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 5

Let’s also talk about the earlier portion of the text, where Clement says women shouldn’t be lovers of gold and material possessions, which the Cathodox conveniently leave out:

And if it is necessary for us, while engaged in public business, or discharging other avocations in the country, and often away from our wives, to seal anything for the sake of safety, He (the Word) allows us a signet for this purpose only. Other finger-rings are to be cast off, since, according to the Scripture, “instruction is a golden ornament for a wise man” (Sirach 21:21). But women who wear gold seem to me to be afraid, lest, if one strip them of their jewellery, they should be taken for servants (δοῦλαι), without their ornaments. But the nobility of truth, discovered in the native beauty which has its seat in the soul, judges the slave (δοῦλον) not by buying and selling, but by a servile (ἀνελευθέρῳ) disposition. And it is incumbent on us not to seem, but to be free (ἐλευθεριώτατον), trained by God, adopted by God. Wherefore we must adopt a mode of standing and motion, and a step, and dress, and in a word, a mode of life, in all respects as worthy as possible of freemen. But men are not to wear the ring on the joint; for this is feminine; but to place it on the little finger at its root. For so the hand will be freest for work, in whatever we need it; and the signet will not very easily fall off, being guarded by the large knot of the joint. And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a ship’s anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water. For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, following as we do, peace; nor drinking-cups, being temperate. – Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, book 3, chapter 11

Clement says we must not be SLAVES to wealth and material possessions, and then the Cathodox use this very text to justify SLAVERY TO THEIR GOLDEN IMAGES!

“Tertullian kissed pictures of Jesus!”

Craig Truglia has long ago surrendered to the truth and accepted the early church’s unanimous condemnation of image-worship. So now Craig occupies his time with making satirical blog posts to mock the Cathodox, who are always scrounging for some shred of evidence that the early church ever bowed to images and offered them sacrifices of incense. One of Craig’s best prank posts was this one where he suggested that since Tertullian says the bishop of Rome’s communion chalice had a picture of the good shepherd on it, communicants were technically “kissing” the image when they put their lips on the cup to drink from it!

For if any slip of the flesh, any distraction of the mind, or any wandering of the eye should cast you down from your firm course, “God is good,” [you say]: He extends His bosom to His own, not to the heathens; a second repentance will receive you; and from an adulterer, you will once again become a Christian. These things you preach to me, most benevolent interpreter of God! Indeed, I would yield to you, if the scripture of The Shepherd—which alone loves adulterers—had deserved to be included in the divine canon, if it were not judged among the apocryphal and false works by every council of even your own Churches—adulterous itself, and hence the patroness of its like. From it, indeed, you draw your initiation; and perhaps that shepherd will defend you, whom you paint upon your chalice—himself a prostitute of the Christian sacrament, rightly an idol of drunkenness and a refuge for the adultery that follows the cup, from which you drink nothing more gladly than the sheep of second repentance. – Tertullian, On Modesty, chapter 10

Tertullian would respond to Craig like this:

There are many things which deserve refutation in such a way as to have no gravity expended on them. Vain and silly topics are met with special fitness by laughter. – Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, chapter 6

Craig has caught us red-handed. We really are icon-venerators. If you think about it, we’re actually kissing EVERY cup we drink from, not just the communion cup. If you drink straight from the jug like I do, you’re venerating the cows on the label. If you take a bite of a burrito, that’s veneration of Mexico. Every night, when I’m laying on my side, and my lips touch the pillow for eight hours straight, I’m engaging in an all-night vigil of devotion to cotton. If I seal an envelope using my tongue, I’m making passionate love to the paper! One time, during COVID, I had to wear a mask over my mouth, and I was kissing that mask ALL DAY LONG! Actually, since my two lips are technically ALWAYS touching EACH OTHER, I’m basically kissing MYSELF constantly! In fact, every time I take a breath, I’m blowing kisses, without even meaning to!

This is a classic example of the equivocation fallacy. Craig’s argument equates all physical contact with the lips as “kissing.” In Craig’s world, they might call it a “kiss” when you take a drink, but where I come from “kissing” is when you pucker up and make a little smooch sound. At some point, you have to admit that intent matters. Without intent, you’re living in a fantasy world where every sip, bite, and breath is an accidental kiss.

“The images in the temple were venerated!”

It’s amazing that the Cathodox would ever claim that anyone was “venerating” (i.e. bowing to and offering incense to) images in Solomon’s temple when the Jews expressly declare the exact opposite, that they had no image in the temple! In fact, whenever the pagans talk about the Jews, they always mention the fact that the Jews are famous for worshiping God without the use of any images! So how can the Cathodox make these statements so boldly, as if the Jews had images in the temple, and were bowing to them and offering them incense as the Cathodox do?

Refer to images/icons section entitled “Meaning of The Second Commandment”.

But let’s address the obvious question: Didn’t Solomon put statues of cherubim in the tabernacle? Why aren’t those statues considered to be images? First of all, no one was bowing to those images or serving them. Secondly, those images were INVISIBLE! God forbade the Jews from creating images, and even when He instructed them to make cherubim on the ark, he commanded that the angels be hidden from view, not only from all the people, but even from the priests! These sculptures were hidden by three layers of veils: the outer veil of the tabernacle, the inner veil of the sanctuary, and the wings of the angels themselves (which are very prominent in the sculptures. Since the angels completely veiled themselves with their wings, they were invisible to all observers, as a symbol of the invisible spiritual realm. The angels are there to direct worship to God, by showing how much the angels reverence God while in His presence, hiding themselves and bowing.

But what about the images of pomegranates and flowers? These do not fall into the category of “images of living things.” This is why in the Wisdom of Sirach, an engraver of signet rings is not condemned, because he makes images of inanimate things, but a painter of pictures or a sculptor of statues IS condemned because they draw pictures of men and animals.

“They made images of St Meletius!”

For being constantly compelled to remember that revered name and to have that saint ever present in their souls, they found his name to be a safeguard against every irrational passion and thought. And this became so widespread that everywhere—in the streets, in the marketplace, in the fields, and on the roads—that name resounded on all sides. Yet they were not only so deeply affected by his name but also by the very image of his body. Just as they did with the name, so too they acted with his likeness. For many engraved his holy image on rings, seals, cups, chamber walls, and everywhere, so that they might not only hear that sacred name but also see his bodily form everywhere, gaining a twofold consolation in his absence. For as soon as he entered, he was cast out of the city, driven away by the enemies of truth. But God permitted this, desiring to reveal both his virtue and your own courage. – John Chrysostom, PG 50, 515-520.

This is not proof of anyone bowing to the image of offering incense to it. Your church doesn’t even allow you to worship your own hand-made images unless they’re consecrated! You bring forward that quote from Chrysostom about the people making images of Meletius in their homes, but how is that proof of the current church’s practice of bowing to images and burning incense to them when your own church says it’s forbidden to worship images that haven’t been consecrated? There is no evidence that any of the laity worshiped the images mentioned in these writings, or that the church leaders approved of worshiping them. It’s no different than Eusebius recounting the story of various pagans making images of Jesus and the apostles. He isn’t declaring any doctrine of the church.

On the contrary, in Chrysostom’s other writings, he bashes these very same people for being “lovers of the body” and approaching idolatrous superstition by showing so much love for these images!

We will examine, if you please, whence idolatry took its rise. A certain wise man (Wisdom 14:16) tells us, that a certain rich man afflicted with untimely mourning for his son, and having no consolation for his sorrow, consoled his passion in this way: having made a lifeless image of the dead, and constantly gazing at it, he seemed through the image to have his departed one still; while certain flatterers, whose God was their belly (Philippians 3:19), treating the image with reverence in order to do him honor, carried on the custom into idolatry. So then it took its rise from weakness of soul, from a senseless custom, from extravagance. – John Chrysostom, Homily 18 on Ephesians

For this reason, after saying, “Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna,” He says again, “I too will deny him.” Thus also Paul does, continually mindful of gehenna. 4. Having then anointed the hearer through all things (for He both opened the heavens to him, and established that fearful tribunal, and showed the theater of the angels, and the proclamation of the crowns in these things, from this preparing much ease for the word of piety), finally, lest the proclamation be hindered by them becoming cowards, He commands them to be prepared for the very slaughters themselves; so that they may learn that those who remain in error will also pay the penalty for their plot. Let us therefore despise death, even if the time that demands it is not at hand; for we will be translated into a much better life. But the body is destroyed? And for this reason one should especially rejoice, that death is destroyed, and mortality perishes, not the substance of the body. For if you were to see a statue being melted down, you would not call what is happening destruction, but a better construction. Reason this way also concerning the body, and do not weep. For then one should have wept, if it remained in punishment. “But,” one says, “this should have happened without the bodies being destroyed, and that they should have remained whole.” And what would this have advantaged either the living or the departed? How long are you lovers of the body? How long are you riveted to the earth and gaping after shadows? Why, what good would this have done? Or rather, what harm would it not have done? For did our bodies not decay, in the first place the greatest of all evils, pride, would have continued with many. For if even while this is going on, and worms gushing out, many have earnestly sought to be gods; what would not have been the result did the body continue?

In the second place, it would not be believed to be of earth; for if, its end witnessing this, some yet doubt; what would they not have suspected if they did not see this? Thirdly, the bodies would have been excessively loved; and most men would have become more carnal and gross; and if even now some cleave to men’s tombs and coffins, after that themselves have perished, what would they not have done, if they had even their image preserved? Fourthly, they would not have earnestly desired the things to come. Fifthly, they that say the world is eternal, would have been more confirmed, and would have denied God as Creator. Sixthly, they would not have known the excellence of the soul, and how great a thing is the presence of a soul in a body. Seventhly, many of them that lose their relations would have left their cities, and have dwelt in the tombs, and have become frantic, conversing continually with their own dead. For if even now men form to themselves images, since they cannot keep the body (for neither is it possible, but whether they will or not it glides and hurries from them), and are riveted to the planks of wood; what monstrous thing would they not then have devised? To my thinking, the generality would have even built temples for such bodies, and they that are skilled in such sorceries would have persuaded evil spirits to speak through them; since at least even now, they that venture on the arts of necromancy attempt many things more out of the way than these. And how many idolatries would not have arisen from hence? When men even after the dust and ashes, are yet eager in those practices.

God therefore, to take away all our extravagances, and to teach us to stand off from all earthly things, destroys the bodies before our eyes. For even he that is enamored of bodies, and is greatly affected at the sight of a beautiful damsel, if he will not learn by discourse the deformity of that substance, shall know it by the very sight. Yea, many of the like age with her whom he loves, and oftentimes also fairer, being dead, after the first or second day, have emitted an ill savor, and foul matter, and decay with worms. Imagine then what sort of beauty you love, and what sort of elegance has power so to disturb you. But if bodies did not decay, this would not be well known: but as evil spirits run unto men’s graves, so also many of our lovers, continually sitting by the tombs, would have received evil spirits in their soul, and would quickly have perished in this grievous madness. – John Chrysostom, Homily 34 on Matthew, chapter 4

“Eusebius says Constantine made a beautiful painting of Jesus!”

And being wholly inspired by the wisdom of God, he decided to declare the city that bore his name, his namesake, to be pure of all idolatry, so that nowhere in it would be seen images of the so-called gods worshipped in temples, nor altars defiled with the gore of blood, nor sacrifices consumed by fire, nor demonic festivals, nor anything else of the things customary to the superstitious. And you might have seen, on the fountains placed in the middle of the public squares, the symbols of the Good Shepherd, familiar to those who come from the divine oracles, and Daniel with the lions, fashioned in bronze and glittering with plates of gold. Such passionate love for the Divinity (τοσοῦτος δὲ θεῖος ἔρως) had seized the emperor’s soul that in the imperial palace itself, in the most preeminent chamber of all, in the very center of the gilded coffered ceiling, in the middle of a very large unfurled panel, the symbol of the Savior’s passion was fixed, composed of various and precious stones wrought in much gold. And this seems to have been made by the God-loving emperor as a protection for his own kingdom. With these things, then, he beautified his city. – Eusbeius, Life of Constantine, Book 3, Chap 48-50

This was only a cross, not a painting of Jesus.

“Methodius said we make statues of angels!”

Here is the supposed quote:

For instance, then, the images of our kings here, even though they be not formed of the more precious materials — gold or silver — are honoured by all. For men do not, while they treat with respect those of the far more precious material, slight those of a less valuable, but honour every image in the world, even though it be of chalk or bronze. And one who speaks against either of them, is not acquitted as if he had only spoken against clay, nor condemned for having despised gold, but for having been disrespectful towards the King and Lord Himself. The images of God’s angels, which are fashioned of gold, the principalities and powers, we make to His honour and glory. – Pseudo-Methodius, From the Second Discourse on the Resurrection

This fake quote coming from John of Damascus about honoring the image of the king is randomly jammed into his authentic book on the resurrection (as if it belonged there), when it’s really from his commentary on Jonah, and it reads quite differently there:

John of Damascus butchered it so badly. This quote is actually taken from Methodius’ commentary on Jonah. The Cathodox have decided to cram it into his authentic book Discourse on the Resurrection and simply label it “part 2”, but it obviously doesn’t belong anywhere in the book.

As, then, Jonah spent three days and as many nights in the whale’s belly, and was delivered up sound again, so shall we all, who have passed through the three stages of our present life on earth—I mean the beginning, the middle, and the end, of which all this present time consists—rise again. For there are altogether three intervals of time, the past, the future, and the present. And for this reason the Lord spent so many days in the earth symbolically, thereby teaching clearly that when the forementioned intervals of time have been fulfilled, then shall come our resurrection, which is the beginning of the future age, and the end of this. For in that age there is neither past nor future, but only the present. Moreover, Jonah having spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, was not destroyed by his flesh being dissolved, as is the case with that natural decomposition which takes place in the belly, in the case of those meats which enter into it, on account of the greater heat in the liquids, that it might be shown that these bodies of ours may remain undestroyed. For consider that God had images of Himself made as of gold, that is of a purer spiritual substance, as the angels; and others of clay or brass, as ourselves. He united the soul which was made in the image of God to that which was earthy. As, then, we must here honour all the images of a king, on account of the form which is in them, so also it is incredible that we who are the images of God should be altogether destroyed as being without honour. Whence also the Word descended into our world, and was incarnate of our body, in order that, having fashioned it to a more divine image, He might raise it incorrupt, although it had been dissolved by time. And, indeed, when we trace out the dispensation which was figuratively set forth by the prophet, we shall find the whole discourse visibly extending to this. – Methodius, Fragments on the History of Jonah, chapter 2

Gregory of Nazianzus:

Hadst thou no respect for the victims slain for Christ’s sake? Didst thou not fear those mighty champions, that John, that Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, Luke, Andrew, and Thecla? And those who after them, and before them, faced danger in the cause of Truth, and who confronted the fire, the sword, the wild beasts, the tyrants, with joy, and evils either present or threatening, as though they were in the bodies of others, or rather as if released from the body! And what for? That they might not betray the Truth, even as far as a word goes; those to whom belong the great honours and festivals; those by whom devils are cast out and diseases healed; to whom belong manifestations of future events, and to whom belong prophecies; whose very bodies possess equal power with their holy souls, whether touched or honored (τιμώμενα);of whom even the drops of the blood and little relics of their passion, produce equal effect with their bodies! (Against Julian the Apostate, 69)

The bodies of the saints are not man-made images. It’s lawful to kiss them. Refer to refutation of Gregory of Nyssa’s oration on Theodore.

Basil the Great:

“According to the blameless faith of the Christians which we have obtained from God, I confess and agree that I believe in one God the Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the œconomy3290 of the Son in the flesh,3291 and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him according to the flesh, was Mother of God.3292 I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches.” (Letter 360).

This is a completely fake quote, used at the second Council of Nicaea, acknowledged to be a forgery by the Catholics and Orthodox.

The footnote says:

3289 This letter is almost undoubtedly spurious, but it has a certain interest, from the fact of its having been quoted at the so-called 7th Council (2d of Nicæa) in 787. Maran (Vit. Bas. xxxix.) is of opinion that it is proved by internal evidence to be the work of some Greek writer at the time of the Iconoclastic controversy. The vocabulary and style are unlike that of Basil.
3290 Neuter sc. πρόσωπα, not ὑποστάσεις, as we should expect in Basil.
3291 ἔνσαρκον οἰκονομίαν, an expression I do not recall in Basil’s genuine writings.
3292 Θεοτόκον, the watchword of the Nestorian controversy, which was after Basil’s time.

We do not fritter away the theology in a divided plurality, because one Form, so to say, united in the invariableness of the Godhead, is beheld in God the Father, and in God the Only begotten. For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead. – Basil, on the Holy Spirit, Chapter 18

Any reasonable person has every right to ask, why can’t you Catholics and Orthodox produce a single legitimate quote from the ante-Nicene fathers, or even the immediately post-Nicene church, to prove your doctrines? And why, on the contrary, do we only hear the bishops saying the exact opposite of your beliefs? Why is it that the quotes you produce end up either being proven to be forgeries or to have highly suspicious origins? Why can’t you show us just ONE quote from a well-known work written by a respected father? Why do you ONLY produce admitted forgeries and fishy new documents? You have everything working against you, not only the silence of these bishops but their very loud voices, telling you to abandon your heresies. And I’m being far too generous by insinuating that a SINGLE quote affirming Mary’s sinlessness in the fourth century, against all the others, would prove it to be true, when really it would only demonstrate this doctrine to be a new invention, and only held by a single knucklehead.

Athanasius quotes:

We, the faithful, do not worship the icons as gods. By no means as the pagans, rather we are simply expressing our relation to, and the feeling of our love toward, the person whose image is depicted in the icon. Hence, frequently when the image has faded, we burn it in fire, then as plain wood, that which previously was an icon. Just as Jacob, when dying, bowed in worship over the head of the staff of Joseph [cf. Heb. 11:21] not honoring the staff, but him to whom it belonged, in the same manner the faithful, for no other reason, venerate [kiss] the icons, just as we often kiss our children, so that we may plainly express the affection [we feel] in our soul. For it is just as the Jew once worshipped the tablets of the Law and the two golden sculptured Cherubims not to honor the nature of the stone and gold, but the Lord who had given them. (39th Question to Antiochos, PG 94.1365.)

This book is rejected by every scholar as a forgery, or at least a falsely-ascribed book written sometime in the 600s or 700s. John of Damascus either mistakenly or maliciously ascribed it to Athanasius, when it was really written by Anastasius of Sinaih. One scholar says:

“This text was written in the second half of the seventh century by Anastasius of Sinai and shares quite a number of QA with the text of Ps.-Athanasius.” – R. Ceulemans & P. De Leemans (eds), On Good Authority” – The Construction of Authority which is LECTIO volume 3, Brepols (2015), pp. 43-66

For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father’s, and it is in the Son; and whoever enters into this, is convinced that “He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father,” for in the Son is contemplated the Father’s Godhead. And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor’s image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, “I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me.” Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance. Since then the Son too is the Father’s Image, it must necessarily be understood that the Godhead and propriety of the Father is the Being of the Son. (Against the Arians, 3.23.5)

Cyril of Alexandria:

(C f. 252 h) “Those who make them become like them.” Even if we make likenesses of holy humans, it is not to worship (προσκυνεῖν) them as gods, but so that, seeing them, we may come to emulate them; and if we make a likeness of Christ, it is so that our mind may be inspired with longing for Him. For we do not worship (προσκυνώμενε) a corruptible image or a corruptible human, but because God deemed it worthy to become human immutably, we make His image as human, although we know Him to be God by nature. Therefore, we do not call the image itself God, but we know God to be the one depicted in the image, whose likeness the image has. But the Greeks, being led astray, glorify likenesses as gods. – Commentary on the Psalms: On Ps. 113B(115), PG 69:1268-1269

ΥΛΑΜΟΣ ΡΙΡ’. “Ομοιοι αυτοίς γένουντο οί ποιοῦντες αὐτά. (C f. 252 h) Εί καί ποιοῦμεν όμοίωμα άνθρώπων θεσσεδών, ούκ έπί τό προσκυνεῖν ως θεοῖς, άλλ’ίνα, δρώντες αυτούς, είς ζῆλον αὐτῶν ἔλθωμεν· εἰ ἐὲ ποιοῦμεν όμοίωμα τού Χριστού, ίνα ή διάνεια ήμών πρός τον πόθον αὐτού ἀναπτερωθῇ. Ού γάρ εἰκάνι φθαρτί η φθαρτού άνθρωπος προσκυνώμενε άλλα Α έπειδη ό Θεός ήξίωσαν άτρίπτως γενάσθαι ένθρωπος, ποιούμεν αυτού εικόνα ός άνθρωπος, καίτερ είδό- τες αυτόν φύσει Θεόν δνεα. Ούκ αυτόν ούν Θεόν την είκόκα λέγομεν, άλλα Θεόν είδότες τον εν τη εικόνα γραφέντα, ού τὸ ὁμοίωμα ἔχει η εικόν. Έλληνες δὲ πλανώμενοι τὰ ὁμοιώματα θεούς δοξέζουσιν.

Some Cathodox wish that Cyril was saying, “We don’t bow to images as God, but we bow to God who is depicted in the image!” as if Cyril was affirming prostration before icons. Even if Cyril was saying this, it would contradict all of the previous church fathers, so we would condemn that teaching as a heresy. But Cyril isn’t affirming or denying whether he bows to the image. He simply says, “If we make likenesses of holy humans, it’s not so that we can bow to them as gods, but so that, seeing them, we may come to emulate them.” This seems to indicate not bowing at all, but rather, only looking at them.

His statement about images of Jesus is more ambiguous: “For we do not worship (προσκυνώμενε) a corruptible image or a corruptible human, but because God deemed it worthy to become human immutably, we make His image as human, although we know Him to be God by nature.” Someone could take this to mean, “We bow to it as God, not as a corruptible image!” but it could be taken alternately as, “The purpose of the image isn’t to be bowed to, but to bring Christ to remembrance.” Since he doesn’t explicitly say, “I bow to it,” it’s not a strong proof text.

But a Cathodox might reply, “Cyril HAS to be bowing to it, because he says, ‘I don’t bow to it AS GOD,’ which implies he bows to it in another way!” Oh really? Let me show you a quotation from John of Damascus, and you can apply the same logic to that:

“But as many as wish to be venerated as gods in a rebellious and apostate manner, these are not to be venerated and are worthy of the eternal fire.” – John of Damascus, Speeches on Images Three, part 27

So if it’s wrong to be venerated as gods in a rebellious and apostate manner, according to your logic, it must be possible to venerate the saints as gods in an obedient and orthodox manner!

There are many passages where the fathers say Nebuchadnezzar wished to be “worshiped as God,” and they all explicitly state that Nebuchadnezzar was making himself out to be a god by simply having his image bowed to. In that case, it’s clear that God’s people weren’t just forbidden to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s image “as god,” but AT ALL. We understand prostration before images to be an AUTOMATIC deification of matter. There is no such thing as bowing to images in any other manner than “as God.” Bowing to the king’s image is always wrong, but bowing to humans isn’t always wrong.

Another similar (but FAKE) quotation comes from Cyril’s book Against Julian:

“We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially.”

The latter part that says “but only relatively and reverentially” is inserted into the text. It’s completely made-up. Here is what Cyril really says:

With respect to the holy martyrs, however, we do not say that they are gods nor are we accustomed to worship them. On the contrary, we crown them with highest honors for being genuine athletes for the truth and safeguarding the authenticity of their faith to such a degree that they disregarded even life itself and, bidding farewell to fears of death, they not only prevailed over all danger but also erected their own achievements like images, as it were, of such admirable bravery for the benefit of human life. Therefore, it was not unreasonable, but doubtless even necessary, that those who boasted of such illustrious accomplishments be crowned with undying honors. And we shall find that doing so was likewise irreproachable among the ancient Greeks themselves. For it was customary for the Athenians, when they were assembled at the very tombs, to crown with yearly encomia those who “at Marathon were foremost in daring” in defense of all Greece and those who later fought nobly against the army of Xerxes, since they endured a glorious death.186 If so, then why can’t this most excellent man let the obligation of honoring the saints go free of critical scrutiny? And yet, even Plato himself says about those who have chosen to live in the best way and have died not ignobly: C”ertainly for the rest of the time, we shall serve them on the understanding that they have died and become daemons and we shall worship at their graves. And certainly, we shall practice these same customs whenever anyone of those who have been judged distinctively good in life should die in old age or in some other way.” So says your Plato, Your Excellency. But, as I said, we ourselves do not claim that the holy martyrs became gods but are accustomed to treat them with all respect and we honor their graves, establishing an unfading memorial for them as a kind of prize and recompense for such illustrious bravery. – Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian, 6.28

Asterius of Amasea:

A bishop named Asterius writes about expensive clothing and he bashes the use of images in sermon 1 of his writings. He takes special note of anyone who would make an image of Jesus.

“But if they take my advice let them sell those clothes and honor the living image of God. Do not picture Christ on your garments. It is enough that he once suffered the humiliation of dwelling in a human body which of his own accord he assumed for our sakes. So, not upon your robes but upon your soul carry about his image.”

Apparently a quote from Asterius (Asterius of Amasea, Homily 11: Ekphrasis on Euphemia) was used to justify icons at the second council of Nicaea. In the quote, Asterius describes a painting he finds on his way out of a church down a street (in the Greek, it is a street, not in the church). Also, read this quote thoroughly. It was CLEARLY written before he became a Christian, let alone a bishop. He refers to “their religion” and “their temple” (Trent Horn says Catholics don’t refer to their churches as temples) and he refers to himself as a servant of the Muses. Furthermore, no one was paying religious service to the image! On top of that, the mural was painted outside of the church building, on an outdoor mural over a tomb, not INSIDE a church, contradicting what Nicaea 2 claimed. It proves nothing in their favor. One website says, “During the iconoclastic controversy, at the second council of Nicaea, with a play on his name, he was referred to as ‘a bright star illumining the minds of all.'” In reality, they quoted the views of a pagan, not a Christian, and that very man adopted the opposite views after becoming a Christian.

Beware: there is good reason to suspect this was written by Asterius before he became a Christian and definitely before he became a bishop. Remember that in Sermon 1, he was adamant against rich Christians depicting Biblical scenes on their clothing:

“But such rich men and women as are more pious, have gathered up the gospel history and turned it over to the weavers; I mean Christ himself with all the disciples, and each of the miracles, as recorded in the Gospel. You may see the wedding of Galilee, and the water-pots; the paralytic carrying his bed on his shoulders; the blind man being healed with the clay; the woman with the bloody issue, taking hold of the border of the garment; the sinful woman falling at the feet of Jesus; Lazarus returning to life from the grave. In doing this they consider that they are acting piously and are clad in garments pleasing to God. But if they take my advice let them sell those clothes and honor the living image of God. Do not picture Christ on your garments. It is enough that he once suffered the humiliation of dwelling in a human body which of his own accord he assumed for our sakes. So, not upon your robes but upon your soul carry about his image.

Do not portray the paralytic on your garments, but seek out him that lies sick. Do not tell continually the story of the woman with the bloody issue, but have pity on the straitened widow. Do not contemplate the sinful woman kneeling before the Lord, but, with contrition for your own faults, shed copious tears. Do not sketch Lazarus rising from the dead, but see to it that you attain to the resurrection of the just. Do not carry the blind man about on your clothing, but by your good deeds comfort the living, who has been deprived of sight. Do not paint to the life the baskets of fragments that remained, but feed the hungry. Do not carry upon your mantles the water-pots which were filled in Cana of Galilee, but give the thirsty drink. Thus we have profited by the magnificent raiment of the rich man.”

So, it makes no sense for him to show such admiration for a painting when he censured the wastefulness of putting Biblical scenes on one’s clothing. I don’t know in what time of his life he wrote or spoke this but it seems it was when he was becoming interested in Christianity but still had a lot of carnal pagan ideas and a fascination with art.

Here, compare what he wrote in Sermon 1 with what he writes here, the blue section being Sermon 1 and the red section being this writing, “Sermon” 11:

“But such rich men and women as are more pious, have gathered up the gospel history and turned it over to the weavers…. Do not portray the paralytic on your garments, but seek out him that lies sick.

The painter, pious in his own craft, traced the whole story as best he could on linen, and set it up near her tomb as a sacred display.

So in Sermon 1 he censures the rich people who decorate their clothing with Biblical scenes but in “Sermon” 11 he calls the painter pious. Also, even though he is starting to approach Christianity here, he is still able to recognize that art is “lifeless”: 11.3.1- “for even in lifeless materials art can show anger when it wishes.”

Another point that shows that this was written before he became a Christian and a bishop is that he praises Demosthenes in sermon 11:

11.1.1 Just now, gentlemen, I had in my hands the fearsome Demosthenes—those passages where he pelts Aeschines with bitter arguments.

But in Sermon 8, he seems to have lost his respect for Demosthenes:

“What a hot, burning medicine of persuasion, touching souls with speed! What God-taught wisdom, covering all human wisdom! What do you say, you who crown Demosthenes among orators and praise Socrates among philosophers? Demosthenes, the great, much-talked-about rhetor, was so far from persuading those he wished that his hearers banished him. Socrates, after many wise talks in Athens, found hemlock at the end—killed by the circle of his “students.” So much for their power to persuade.”

So, in “Sermon” 11 he praises Demosthenes’ writings but in Sermon 8 he denounces Demosthenes and Socrates as being poor orators and being unable to persuade their enemies, ending in bad ends for them. Asterius is in two different periods of his life. In “Sermon” 11 he is younger and still worldly with his appreciation of pagan political writings and admiration of paintings, but his true sermons show a mature Christian bishop who tells his listeners to avoid wasting money on artwork and portraying Peter and Paul as superior speakers and being more persuasive than the pagan politicians. 

I have highlighted in red the parts that prove he is not speaking as a Christian, but a curious outsider, being ignorant of Christian terminology.

Sermon 11:

“Asterius, bishop of Amasea: a vivid description of Saint Euphemia the Martyr.”

11.1.1 Just now, gentlemen, I had in my hands the fearsome Demosthenes—those passages where he pelts Aeschines with bitter arguments. After lingering over his speech and packing my mind tight, I needed some relief and a walk, so the strain in my soul could loosen a bit. I left my room, strolled a little in the marketplace with friends, and from there went to God’s temple to pray at leisure.

11.1.2 As I walked along one of its covered colonnades, I saw a painting there, and the sight seized me completely. You’d have said it was a work of Euphranor, or of one of those ancients who raised painting to greatness, making panels that were all but alive. Come now, if you like—there’s time for a story—let me describe the painting. We children of the Muses have remedies no worse than those of the painters.

11.2.1 There was a woman, a holy virgin, who had dedicated her spotless chastity to God—they call her Euphemia. When a tyrant was zealously persecuting the devout, she eagerly chose the danger that leads to death. The citizens and fellow believers—for whose faith she died—marveled at the virgin as both brave and sacred. They built her a tomb near the sanctuary, laid her coffin there, render her honors, and make her yearly feast a common, public festival.

11.2.2 The priests of God’s mysteries honor her memory always by word and deliberate devotion, and carefully teach the gathering crowds how she completed the contest of endurance. The painter, pious in his own craft, traced the whole story as best he could on linen, and set it up near her tomb as a sacred display. The artwork goes like this.

11.3.1 A judge sits high on a throne, looking harshly and with hostility at the virgin—for even in lifeless materials art can show anger when it wishes. There are many lictors and soldiers; some are clerks of the record, carrying tablets and styli. One of them lifts his hand from the wax and stares hard at the accused, turning his whole face toward her, as if urging her to speak louder so that, not tiring his ears, he won’t write mistakes and omissions.

11.3.2 The virgin stands wearing a gray tunic and mantle—signaling philosophy, so the painter thought—and her appearance is graceful; but to me, her soul is the thing adorned with virtues. Two soldiers lead her to the magistrate: one pulling her forward, the other pressing from behind. Her look blends modesty and firmness: she lowers her gaze to the ground, as if blushing before men’s eyes, yet she stands unshaken, feeling nothing cowardly about the contest.

11.3.3 I used to praise other painters when I saw the scene of that Colchian woman—how, about to lift the sword against her children, she split her face between pity and rage: one eye showed anger, the other revealed the mother, sparing and shuddering. But now I’ve shifted my wonder from that idea to this painting. I greatly admire the craftsman for blending the bloom of his colors even better—mixing modesty and courage together, passions naturally at war.

11.4.1 As the depiction moves forward, some executioners in short tunics, stripped for the task, begin their work. One grabs her head and bends it back, presenting her face for the other to punish; the other, standing by, cuts out the pearly whiteness of her teeth—hammer and drill are shown as the instruments of torture. At this point I weep, and emotion breaks off my words; the painter has tinted the drops of blood so vividly that you’d say they truly pour from her lips, and you’d go away in mourning.

11.4.2 After this, a prison: again the modest virgin in her gray garments sits alone, stretching out her hands to heaven and calling on God to help in her trials. As she prays, a sign appears above her head—the sign Christians are taught to venerate and inscribe on themselves—surely a symbol of the suffering that awaited her.

11.4.3 Soon after, the painter has kindled a fierce fire elsewhere, giving the flame bodily form with red shining on either side. He sets her in the midst, her hands spread toward heaven, showing no distress on her face; rather, she rejoices that she is departing to the bodiless, blessed life.

11.4.4 Up to this point the painter has stayed his hand—and I, my speech. Now it is your turn, if you wish, to complete the picture yourself, so you may see it precisely—unless, of course, we have come too late behind the telling.

Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century):

It is said that the man [St. Symeon] became so celebrated in the great city of Rome that at the entrance of all the workshops men have set up small representations of him, to provide thereby some protection and safety for themselves. – Theodoret (Life of St. Symeon the Stylite, 11)

So the craftsmen who create trinkets and and sell objects for their trade found a way to make money by making little images of the famous guy sitting on a pillar… what a surprise! Is this a doctrine coming from the church? He doesn’t even say Christians or bishops are doing this. It’s just artisans selling their stuff outside of workshops!

The ascetic men who are being depicted in these little images would be extremely distressed if they ever found out that shopkeepers were selling images of them to superstitious people for spiritual protection.

First article on the forgery.

Orthodox wiki on Vladimir icon.

If this were true, this would be the absolute BEST proof of icon-veneration EVER! It would be undeniably apostolic! And yet the Second Council of Nicaea made no mention of this story, which would have ended the debate instantly. I wonder why…. It obviously hadn’t been invented yet!

It’s amazing how these orthodox think they have ABSOLUTE PROOF that Luke painted this icon, based on ONE quote from Andrew of Crete, who died in 740. ONE QUOTE is all they need to be ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED this is from the apostles! But if you show them countless quotes on any subject contradicting their heresies, they’ll say, “That’s not enough proof!” We can drop PILES of quotes onto you from the early church, but you don’t begin to value any testimony until it’s FAR beyond the times of unity and purity in the church. But is it really too much to ask for even ONE quote from the first 600 years of history that testifies this icon was painted by Luke? But even the Catholics think you’re completely insane for making up this story. None of them quote from it. Furthermore, this singular quote from Andrew of Crete is taken from a FORGED book, falsely attributed to him, which only exists in tiny fragments!

“Chrysostom said there are statues in the church!”

Here’s a quote on a website, claiming to support statues in church:

For like a conflagration indeed, or like a thunderbolt hurled from on high, have they lighted upon the roof of the Church, and yet they rouse up no one; but whilst our Father’s house is burning, we are sleeping, as it were, a deep and stupid sleep. And yet who is there whom this fire does not touch? Which of the statues that stand in the Church? for the Church is nothing else than a house built of the souls of us men. Now this house is not of equal honor throughout, but of the stones which contribute to it, some are bright and shining, whilst others are smaller and more dull than they, and yet superior again to others. There we may see many who are in the place of gold also, the gold which adorns the ceiling. Others again we may see, who give the beauty and gracefulness produced by statues. Many we may see, standing like pillars. For he is accustomed to call men also on account of their beauty, adding as they do, much grace, and having their heads overlaid with gold (Homilies 10 on Ephesians [circa A.D. 400]).

But these people are liars. Chrysostom is speaking metaphorically about Christians being the pillar-statues that hold the ceiling up:

You have oftentimes been present at the burning of large houses. You have seen how the smoke keeps rising up to Heaven; and if no one comes near to put a stop to the mischief, but every one keeps looking to himself, the flame spreads freely on, and devours everything. And oftentimes the whole city will stand around; they will stand round indeed as spectators of the evil, not to aid nor assist. And there you may see them one and all standing round, and doing nothing but each individual stretching out his hand, and pointing out to some one who may be just come to the spot, either a flaming brand that moment flying through a window, or beams hurled down, or the whole circuit of the walls forced out, and tumbling violently to the ground. Many too there are of the more daring and venturesome, who will have the hardihood even to come close to the very buildings themselves while they are burning, not in order to stretch forth a hand towards them, and to put a stop to the mischief, but that they may the more fully enjoy the sight, being able from the nearer place to observe closely all that which often escapes those at a distance. Then if the house happen to be large and magnificent, it appears to them a pitiable spectacle, and deserving of many tears. And truly there is a pitiable spectacle for us to behold; capitals of columns crumbled to dust, and many columns themselves shattered to pieces, some consumed by the fire, others thrown down often by the very hands which erected them, that they may not add fuel to the flame. Statues again, which stood with so much gracefulness, with the ceiling resting on them, these you may see all exposed, with the roof torn off, and themselves standing hideously disfigured in the open air. And why should one go on to describe the wealth stored up within? The tissues of gold, and the vessels of silver? And where the lord of the house and his consort scarcely entered, where was the treasurehouse of tissues and perfumes, and the caskets of the costly jewels — all has become one blazing fire, and within now, are bath-men and street-cleaners, and runaway slaves, and everybody; and everything within is one mass of fire and water, of mud, and dust, and half-burnt beams!

Now why have I drawn out so full a picture as this? Not simply because I wish to represent to you the conflagration of a house, (for what concern is that of mine?) but because I wish to set before your eyes, as vividly as I can, the calamities of the Church. For like a conflagration indeed, or like a thunderbolt hurled from on high, have they lighted upon the roof of the Church, and yet they rouse up no one; but while our Father’s house is burning, we are sleeping, as it were, a deep and stupid sleep. And yet who is there whom this fire does not touch? Which of the statues that stand in the Church? For the Church is nothing else than a house built of the souls of us men. Now this house is not of equal honor throughout, but of the stones which contribute to it, some are bright and shining, while others are smaller and more dull than they, and yet superior again to others. There we may see many who are in the place of gold also, the gold which adorns the ceiling. Others again we may see, who give the beauty and gracefulness produced by statues. Many we may see, standing like pillars. For he is accustomed to call men also pillars Galatians 2:9, not only on account of their strength but also on account of their beauty, adding as they do, much grace, and having their heads overlaid with gold. We may see a multitude, forming generally the wide middle space and the whole extent of the circumference; for the body at large occupies the place of those stones of which the outer walls are built. Or rather we must go on to a more splendid picture yet. This Church, of which I speak, is not built of these stones, such as we see around us, but of gold and silver, and of precious stones, and there is abundance of gold dispersed everywhere throughout it. But, oh the bitter tears this calls forth! For all these things has the lawless rule of vainglory consumed; that all-devouring flame, which no one has yet got under. And we stand gazing in amazement at the flames, but no longer able to quench the evil: or if we do quench it for a short time, yet after two or three days as a spark blown up from a heap of ashes overturns all, and consumes no less than it did before, so it is here also: for this is just what is wont to happen in such a conflagration. And as to the cause, it has devoured the supports of the very pillars of the Church; those of us who supported the roof, and who formerly held the whole building together it has enveloped in the flame. Hence too was a ready communication to the rest of the outer walls: for so also in the case of buildings, when the fire lays hold of the timbers, it is better armed for its attack upon the stones; but when it has brought down the pillars and leveled them with the ground, nothing more is wanted to consume all the rest in the flames. For when the props and supports of the upper parts fall down, those parts also themselves will speedily enough follow them. – John Chrysostom, Homilies 10 on Ephesians

“Gregory the Great said he saw adorers of images!”

Furthermore we notify to you that it has come to our ears that your Fraternity, seeing certain adorers of images, broke and threw down these same images in Churches. And we commend you indeed for your zeal against anything made with hands being an object of adoration; but we signify to you that you ought not to have broken these images. For pictorial representation is made use of in Churches for this reason; that such as are ignorant of letters may at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books. Your Fraternity therefore should have both preserved the images and prohibited the people from adoration of them, to the end that both those who are ignorant of letters might have wherewith to gather a knowledge of the history, and that the people might by no means sin by adoration of a pictorial representation. – Gregory the Great, Epistle 105 to Serenus, Bishop of Massilia

I thought you guys said you venerate but DON’T adore? It should be clear that veneration and adoration ARE the same thing: it’s the act of bowing! Otherwise, he couldn’t have SEEN them adoring, because that would be ASSUMING they were going beyond veneration (i.e. bowing) and “adoring” in their hearts, which is an accusation to make when only God can look inside the heart! All of the Latin fathers – Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, etc. – translate the word “proskineo” as “adore.”

But what could be a more explicit admission that one’s views are heretical than to justify one’s practice by pointing to examples in church history where the practice was being condemned by the fathers! These Cathodox say, “See? Some people were condemned for adoring images! This proves it’s an apostolic practice!” This is why we have the three criteria that constitute orthodoxy, or else we end up with insane conclusions like this. You might as well point to every time a Gnostic or an Ebionite or a Sabellian or an Arian was convicted of heresy as proof that your doctrine is the most ancient! You’ve officially identified yourselves with the heretics and rejected the universal consensus of the fathers. Gregory’s account of foolish Christians bowing to images is no more proof that it’s an orthodox doctrine than Leo condemning superstitious Christians for bowing to the sun!

“Epiphanius said no bishops agreed with him!”

Refutation:

How convenient that after the idolaters were convicted by Epiphanius’ writings, this forged letter appears with an addendum to the curtain incident story, where Epiphanius supposedly says, “Hey, you remember that letter I wrote you earlier about images? I just thought I’d write another letter to let you know, absolutely nobody agrees with my views on images!” Yeah, that totally sounds legit and not at all like a forgery! Also notice Epiphanius’ bizarre command to the emperor to attend the lamp-lighting services, which relates to a second issue raised by the idolaters, on the issue of lighting candles for images. They wished to frame Epiphanius as a big fan of the candle services, even though he rejected icon-worship!

Even the idiotic Second Council of Nicaea read this letter and declared it to be a forgery. The Cathodox use this letter to prove iconodulia was the prevailing practice (since Epiphanius says the other bishops ignored him), but the council didn’t care for this argument and refused to even acknowledge that any bishop would have rejected icon-veneration – even Epiphanius himself. They criticized the letter and all agreed it was the fakest thing ever (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 13 (1767) page 296D). Too bad, you Cathodox! You lose either way: Either you agree with the Second Council of Nicaea that this letter was forged or you condemn the decision made by Nicaea II, which means your council can’t tell the difference between forgeries and genuine letters! You agree with us that your councils are a mess. Even the patriarch of Constantinople, Nicephorus (758–828), when refuting the iconoclasts, write a lengthy bit against this forged letter to Theodosius, and according to scholars, “His conclusions remained authoritative for a thousand and two hundred years” (Istvan M. Bugar, What Did Epiphanius Write to Emperor Theodosius?, p. 73).

Here is the Greek text with my translation:

νῦν αὖτις ὁ συγγραφάμενος τὴν τῶν ῥητῶν τούτων ἔκθεσιν, τὴν κατὰ τῶν σπινὶν[*] εἰκονίων, μὴ δικαιούσθω λέγειν παρὰ τῶν αὐτῶν πατέρων. ὅτε δὲ θεῖον περίντων[?], φῶς ἂν σύμπει[?] οὗ ἅγιοι πατέρες οὐκ ἐδεῖσαν, ἡμεῖς οἱ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς αἰώνων καταπτήσαντες, κ.λ.οῖς[?] υἱοὶ Γνώσεως ἀποροῦντες, ὅτι οὐδὲ μαθηταὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἀξιοῦ αὐτὴν καλεῖσθαι, ταλαιπωρικῶς καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας δεξιόμονα[?]. Ἄπαγε! γῆς ζωῆς καὶ ὑπληρᾶς[?] ἐκθέσεως. Εἴτ’ ἐσσαν[?] τοῦ ὄργου λόγοι οἱ τούτῳ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐγχειρήσαντες. ἔσω δὴ ἡμῖν πᾶς φιλόχριστος τὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρῆνον[?], τὸ φάσκον· Κρατήσωμεν τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς παρελάβομεν, καὶ τοὺς ἔβαλλες[?] χειροφωνίας παρατησόν μεθ’ ἃ, καὶ ψάδης[?] καὶ πεπλασμένα τίμια γνωσόμεθα εἶναι. αἱ γὰρ βίβλοι τοῦ ἁγίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἐπιφανίου, ἥ τε λεγομένη Ἄγκυρωτὸς καὶ αἱ λοιπαί, εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην ῥίζωνται[?], καὶ ἡ φυγὴ[?] αὐτῆς ἐξεγίστη[?], καὶ παρὰ μικρὸν κατὰ πᾶσαν ἐκκλησίαν διεπαρμέσαι[?] εἰσί. τιμῶνται δέ τι λοίδευμα[?], ἃ κατὰ τῶν σπειλῶν[?] εἰκόνων περιθορυβεῖ, δύο ἢ τρεῖς βίβλοι ἀγαθά[?] σάσαν[?] τὴν οἰκουμένην οὕτω ἁρλωται[?], εἰ μὴ νεωστὶ ἐγράφησαν. καὶ εἰ ἦσαν γνώριμοι τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ὥσπερ ἡ λεγομένη Ἄγκυρωτὸς τοῦ ἁγίου Ἐπιφανίου, ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πεπλάτουνται[?], οὕτως καὶ αὗται ἐν ἐπλατυσμένῳ[?].

“Now again, let the one who composed this exposition of these words—the one directed against the [veneration of] icons—not be justified in speaking by the same Fathers. For when the divine light shone, which the Holy Fathers did not fear, we who have arrived at the ends of the ages, as sons of Knowledge yet lacking it, [should not think] that even his own disciples would deem it worthy to be called such; [to do so is] miserable and [contrary to] the right-handed [customs] of the Church.

Away with it! Away with the [false] exposition of life on earth. If there were any words of work by this man that laid hands upon the Church, let every Christ-lover among us hold to the Apostle’s command, which says: ‘Let us hold fast the traditions which we have received.’ And having set aside those [falsely] proclaimed ordinations, we shall recognize what is false and fabricated.

For the books of our Holy Father Epiphanius—both the one called The Ancoratus and the rest—are rooted throughout the whole inhabited world; their fame is most great and they are distributed in nearly every church. Yet these [iconoclastic] writings, which cause such an uproar against the images, are honored as some kind of mockery. If these two or three books had [truly] spread across the whole world, would they not have been written recently? If they were known to the Catholic Church, just as the Ancoratus of Saint Epiphanius is, they would be widespread in all churches; thus these [would have been] widespread as well.”

ἀλλ’ ὡς ξένια καὶ ἀλλότριαι καὶ παρεγράφησαν, οὐδέπω δὴ τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐδιδόχθαν[?], ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ θεοφανίσπαν[?]. οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ γνωμί[?], ἵνα ἡ εἰρήνη τῇ Θεῷ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, καὶ ἡ ἀρχαία παράδοσις ἐμπολιδεσποι[?]. μὴ παραπεμπέσθωσαν δὲ τὰς γλώσσας οἱ κακολόγοι, κατηγοροῦντες τῆς ὀργῆς φρόνημα, ὅτι τῷ ἁγίῳ Ἐπιφανίῳ ὁσάκις τινὲς ἀποδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀρχαίαν θεομοθέσιον[?] τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, οὐδαμῶς τῷ μοῦ[?] γὰρ σύγγραμμα ἀποβαλλόμενοι, τὸν δὲ ἅγιον πατέρα διδάσκαλον τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας γι- νώσκομεν. Κύριον σὺ ζητήσατε τωστήρης[?] κύριον, κυβερνικὴ σωφόροι[?] τῷ κυκλωμένῳ συναθροιζό- μενοι δεῖτε[?] πατέρες τὴν ἐπισκόπησιν ἵνα λεγόμενος Ἀβὰ ἐπίσκοπος Εὐσεῖς[?] ἁγὸς[?] Μαρίων τὸν Πέρσην ἀνεξερεύνησαν[?], ὡς Νεστορίῳ συμφωνήσαντα· ὡσαύ- τως καὶ τὰ αἴτια πέμπτης σωφόρος[?]· τὸν δὲ Ἀβὰ βάμανος[?]. οὐ γὰρ ἀληθὲς ἀπεδέχοντο, ὅτι Ἀβὰ λιθὶ[?] τι ἐπιστολῆς.

“But as foreign and alien [works], they have been set aside; they were never taught to the Catholic Church, nor were they revealed by God. Therefore, they are not [his] opinion, so that the peace of God may remain in all the churches and the ancient tradition may hold sway. Let the foul-tongued ones not let their tongues run wild, accusing the mind of wrath [or accusing us of anger], because as often as some of us accept the ancient divine legislation of the Catholic Church, we in no way reject [the Father’s] own writing, but rather we recognize the Holy Father as a teacher of the Catholic Church. Seek the Lord, you [who are] luminaries! You wise pilots, gathering together in this circle, see to the oversight, Fathers—just as the one called Aba, Bishop of Edessa, [and] the holy Marion the Persian were scrutinized as having agreed with Nestorius; and likewise the causes of the Fifth [Council] were wisely sent; but Aba [was acquitted?]. For they did not accept it as true that Aba [wrote] something in a letter.”

ἐνθὲν καὶ εἰς τὰς ἀναθεματισμὰς τὸ Ἀβὰ ἀναθεματίσαι παρέπεμψαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν λεγομέ- νην Ἀβὰ ἐπιστολὴν· ἐλέγετο γάρ, ὡς λιθὶ[?] δέ. ὅπως δὲ τὰ ποῖα τι ψάλδογρα[?] συγγραμματικεύεται τῶν σεπτῶν εἰκόνων λέγεται μιᾷ παρατιθεὶς τὸ ἁγίου Ἐπιφανίου, εὐδαμῆ[?] δὲ νόμακος[?] εἶσιν, ὡς ὁδεύεται. (ἐγὼ ναὸν ἀνεδείμαντο[?] ὃς τῷ Κυπείων[?] νήσῳ αὐτοὶ μαθηταί, ὀνομάσαντες αὐτὴν Τὸ αὐτὸ παθές- κε[?] μὲν οἰολογικὸν[?] εἰκονικὸν σημαγραφικὸν καὶ αὐτοῦ εἰ- κονίαν δὲ τιναὶ ἀνεξηγεῖν. καὶ ὅπως τὴν ῥίζαν σεπ- τὴν εἰκονικὴν ἐβεβλήθει[?] θῦν[?], πῶς οἱ τόποι φοιτη- τικοὶ εἰκονικῶς τῶν εἰσλογραφησῶν[?]; χεῖραν παῖ- τες οἱ ἀκούοντες, καὶ τὰ ἀληθῆ διὰ τὰς ψάδας[?] χω- ρίσματα. ὅτι οὐ τὰ παῖδες[?] αἱ ἐκδόσεις αὐτῶν, ἀλ- λαὶ Μανιακικαί[?] τινες, αἱ γὰρ ὄνες[?] ἔχεσθαι, ὡς χο- λῆς πικελίας[?] μεμεσωμοῦν. αὐτοὶ γὰρ καὶ τῇ συγχύσεως ἐπιγητικὴ[?] ταύτισιν[?] τὴν βίαν ἐδείξαντο θάμμως[?], ὡς ἂς[?] ἀλησίδες[?] ἀπεστέλλοντες ζωήθρω- ψασθαι[?] τὴν Θεὸν λόγον σαρκί, ἀλλὰ κατὰ φαντασίαν καὶ δόκησιν, διὸ καὶ ὅτι φαντασίαι μῦθοι, ἔπει- ἀγῇ[?] ἔτιρων[?] γοῦντες[?], ἀφοφέρουνται[?] τάδε. ΓΡΗ-

“From this, they proceeded to the anathemas: not to anathematize [the man] Aba, but rather the so-called Letter of Aba—for it was said to be [heretical]. In the same way, regarding these pseudonymous writings composed against the venerable icons, which are falsely attributed to Saint Epiphanius: they are in no way his law (teaching), as is clearly shown.

(For example, I built a temple… which his own disciples in the island of Cyprus [honored]… naming it… some interpret his images [in a certain way].) And how could the venerable root of icon-making be cast out? How could the places of learning be [decorated] with icons of those recorded?

Pay attention, all you who hear, and separate the truth from the lies! For these editions are not the work of [holy] children, but are some maniacal [Manichaean] inventions. For they are like [bad things] to be avoided, as they are filled with the bitterness of gall. For by the interpretation of their own confusion, they have violently shown themselves to be like [chained ones], [denying] that the Word of God truly became flesh, but claiming it was only by fantasy and appearance (docetism). Therefore, since these are fantasies and myths, they lead others astray… and such things are cast away.”

Reconstruction of text (made by Istvan M. Bugar, What Did Epiphanius Write to Emperor Theodosius?):

1. α¹

{Praising the Emperor along with his children} which has always existed and was of old guarded by a few, was confessed by an ecumenical council of our holy fathers and bishops in the city of Nicaea because of the evil doctrine of Arius. And this is it, as three hundred and eighteen bishops confessed and signed, not setting forth a recent faith, but confessing that which has always been. Following them as sons from our youth—both we ourselves and our parents having been born into it—we confess and hold fast to this same [faith], just as you do, most pious Emperor. And it is this: “We believe in one God, Father Almighty…” {and the rest of the Creed}.

1.b.²

…and concerning the views [or appearances], and these things of those [belonging] to sinners…

1.c³

{⁵ There were also many other heresies in the land of the Cypriots, which are these: Sophists, Sabellians, Nicolaitans, Simonians, Basilidians, [and] Carpocratians. Concerning these, Epiphanius wrote a letter to King Theodosius, so that by royal decree he might drive them from the island. ⁵ For there were wealthy men among them, who [also]… The King, therefore, having received the letters from Epiphanius, issued a decree [typos] of this sort:

“If anyone does not obey Father Epiphanius, the bishop of the land of the Cypriots, in matters of divine doctrine, let him depart from the island and dwell wherever he wishes. But if some, being friends and children of repentance, confess to the common Father, ‘Having been led astray, we wish to come to the way of truth,’ let them remain on the island, being instructed by the common Father.”

When the decree arrived by way of a soldier and was made manifest, many of them were persuaded by Epiphanius. But those who were not persuaded were immediately driven from the island.}

2.5

The devil, by his own evil artifice, devised idolatry in the world; he sowed and established this in the world and turned men away from God. Now, once again, following the heresies and the idols, he has dragged the faithful down into ancient idolatry and deceived them. For your Piety and the wisdom given to you by God will perceive and search into the depth of meanings, whether it is fitting for us to have a God depicted by means of colors. [Who has ever heard such a thing?]

Who has ever heard such things? Who among the ancient fathers, having painted an image of Christ, placed it in a church or in his own house? Who among the ancient bishops, dishonoring Christ, painted Him upon the veils of doors? Who, having painted Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, Moses and the rest of the prophets and patriarchs, or Peter or Andrew or James or John or the rest of the apostles upon veils or upon walls, thus exposed them to contempt and made a public spectacle of them? Moreover, they also speak falsely, modeling the forms of the saints in various different ways according to their own imagination—sometimes representing the same persons as old men and at other times as youths—intruding into things which they have not seen.

[For that very thing which they fashion, conceiving it from their own imagination, they speak falsely;] for the deceivers depict the holy apostle Peter as an elderly man, with his head and beard shorn; and others depict the holy Paul as having receding hair, while others depict him as a bald man with a beard, and the other disciples with their hair cut plain.

They depict the Savior as having long hair, based on the assumption that because He is called a Nazarene, the Nazirites must have long hair. But those who attempt to attach these forms to Him are in error; for the Savior drank wine, which the Nazirites did not drink.

If, therefore, the Savior had long hair, while the other disciples were shorn, and if He Himself was not shorn and did not appear equal to them, for what reason did the Pharisees and the scribes give thirty pieces of silver to Judas as a reward, so that by kissing Him he might point out to them, “This is the one you seek”? Could they not have known by themselves or through others—by the sign of the long hair—the one they sought to find, without giving a reward?

Do you not see, O most God-beloved King, that this work is not fitting for God? Therefore, I beseech you, O most God-fearing King and hater of evil, who rebukes every error, through the zeal for God that is in you in truth: establish by your firm legislation—prescribed with a penalty—if it is possible (and I believe that if you will it in God, you are able), that the veils, wherever they may be found having images—falsely [depicted] though they be—of either apostles or prophets or of the Lord Himself and Christ, that all these, being collected from churches or baptisteries or houses or martyria, shall be used for the burial of the poor. As for those images on walls made by colors, let them be whited over.

Regarding those [images] previously executed in mosaic, since such a dismantling is difficult, it is for you to know, in the wisdom given to you by God, how you shall command. If it is possible for them to be dismantled, so be it; but if it is impossible, let what has already been done suffice, and let no one paint in such a manner anymore. For indeed, our fathers painted nothing else except the sign of Christ—the Cross—upon their doors and everywhere.

{First, he confessed that because of this nonsense, it has become a matter of laughter and mockery to the many; then he added that:} “Though I frequently advised those who seem to be wise—even though they are bishops, teachers, and fellow-ministers—that these things should be removed, I was not listened to by all, but only by some, and of these, very few indeed.”

3.a

{…that it is permitted for them, not only during the Forty Days [Lent] but also at other times, to fast until the ninth hour on Saturdays, after which they may break their fast and cease from abstaining from food}.

3.b

{From the letter of Epiphanius of Cyprus to King Theodosius}.

But along with all your virtues, O God-crowned [King], do not fail to gather [for prayer] during the dawn and the lamp-lighting [services]; since these are types of the two ages. For evening comes, and we turn to sleep; but the sun rises at the crowing of the cock and we arise—which is a type of the coming resurrection of the dead and a character of the age to come.

In the evening, let us offer prayers to God, being obligated [to do so] for the sake of being guarded from every fantasy and the plotting of both demons and creeping things, and from collapse and earthquakes; but also from every sin and the working of those who hate us. At dawn, again, we pray, performing the morning services so that prosperity and a peaceful life may be given to us by the Lord, and that we may be delivered from every scandal and every sin. Be diligent to pray together with the Augusta and the [Imperial] Sponsor continually during the day as well; for the ambushes of the devil are many.

Greek text reconstruction:

1. α¹
{τὸν βασιλέα μετὰ τῶν τέκνων ἐγκωμιάζων} <ἡ πίστις> ἀεὶ μὲν οὖσα καὶ ὑπὸ ὀλίγων πάλαι φυλαχθεῖσα διὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ Ἀρείου κακοδοξίαν ὑπὸ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου ἁγίων πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπων ἐν Νικαίᾳ τῇ πόλει ὁμολογηθεῖσα, καί ἐστιν αὕτη, ὡς ὡμολόγησαν καὶ ὑπέγραψαν τριακόσιοι δεκαοκτὼ ἐπίσκοποι, οὐ πρόσφατον ἐκθέμενοι πίστιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀεὶ οὖσαν ὁμολογήσαντες, οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς ὡς υἱοὶ ἀκολουθοῦντες ἀπὸ νέας ἡλικίας, αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ ἡμῶν γονεῖς ἐν αὐτῇ γεγεννημένοι, τὴν αὐτὴν ὁμολογοῦμέν τε καὶ κατέχομεν· ὡς καὶ σύ, εὐσεβέστατε βασιλεῦ. Καί ἐστιν αὕτη· Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα {καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τοῦ συμβόλου.}

1.b.²
καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀποψίας καὶ ταῦτα ἐκείνων ἁμαρτωλοῖς

1.c³
{⁵ Ἦσαν δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι πλεῖσται αἱρέσεις ἐν τῇ Κυπρίων χώρᾳ αἵτινές εἰσιν αὗται· Σοφισταί,⁴ Σαβελλιανοί, Νικολαῖται, Σιμωνιανοί, Βασιλειδιανοί, Καρποκρατιανοί. Περὶ τούτων Ἐπιφάνιος ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὴν τῷ βασιλεῖ Θεοδοσίῳ, ὅπως ἀπὸ διατάξεως βασιλικῆς τούτους διώξει τῆς νήσου. ⁵ Ἦσαν γὰρ ἄνδρες πλούσιοι ἐν αὐτοῖς, οἵτινες καὶ Δεξάμενος οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς τὰ γράμματα παρὰ Ἐπιφανίου, καὶ ἐποίησεν τύπον τοιοῦτον. Εἴ τις τῷ Πατρὶ Ἐπιφανίῳ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ τῆς Κυπρίων χώρας οὐχ ὑπακούει διὰ θείων λόγων, ἐξερχέσθω τῆς νήσου, καὶ ὅπου θέλει κατοικείτω. Εἰ δέ τινες φίλοι ὄντες καὶ τέκνα τῆς μετανοίας, καὶ ὁμολογοῦσιν τῷ κοινῷ Πατρί, ὅτι πλανηθέντες βουλόμεθα εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν· μεινάτωσαν ἐπὶ τῆς νήσου διδασκόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ Πατρός. Τοῦ οὖν τύπου παρὰ στρατευομένου ἐλθόντος καὶ ἐμφανισθέντος, πολλοὶ ἐπείσθησαν ἐξ αὐτῶν Ἐπιφανίῳ. Οἱ δὲ μὴ πεισθέντες εὐθέως ἐδιώχθησαν ἐκ τῆς νήσου.

“Gregory of Nyssa venerated St Theodore’s relics!”

No mention is made of bowing to his image or offering incense to it. That would be idolatry.

Instead, Gregory says people considered it an honor to take some of the dust off the top of Theodore’s coffin (perhaps putting it in a bag) and rub it all over their eyes, nose, ears, and mouth, counting this as the greatest blessing. As we’ve already explained, God specifically forbade us from bowing to images and offering them incense, which are the two things the Cathodox insist on doing to their images. In order to justify this, they point to Christians kissing and embracing the dead bodies of the saints, or at least of things which were touching their bodies. God never forbade this, because the bodies of the saints are holy. Refer to “relics” section above.

But having come to a place like this, where our assembly is today, where there is a memorial of a righteous man and a holy relic, first he is delighted by the magnificence of what he sees, looking upon a house like a temple of God, splendidly adorned by the size of its structure, and by the beauty of its decoration, where a carpenter has shaped the wood into the likeness of living things, and a stone-cutter has smoothed the slabs to the smoothness of silver. A painter too has colored the flowers of his art, having depicted in an image the martyr’s valiant deeds, the struggles, the pains, the beast-like forms of the tyrants, the insults, that flame-fed furnace, the most blessed consummation of the athlete, the likeness of the human form of Christ the judge of the contest, all of our things as in having crafted with colors in a sort of speaking book, he clearly narrated the contests of the martyr, and adorned the temple like a shining meadow; for a silent picture on a wall knows how to speak, and to benefit greatly; and the one who sets the mosaic tiles made the trodden floor worthy of history. And having thus feasted his sight on the perceptible works of art, he desires then to approach the reliquary itself; believing the contact to be a sanctification and a blessing. And if someone should be allowed to take the dust lying on the surface of his resting place, the soil is received as a gift, and the earth is treasured as a keepsake. For to touch these remains (λειψάνου), if ever some good fortune should grant the opportunity, how greatly longed for it is, and the gift of the highest prayer, those who have experienced it know, and have been filled with such desire. For those who see it kiss it as if it were a living and flourishing body, bringing it near to their eyes, their mouth, their ears, to all their senses, then pouring out a tear of piety and of passion, as to a whole and visible martyr they offer the supplication to intercede, beseeching him as a bodyguard of God, invoking him as one who receives gifts when he wishes. From all these things, pious people, learn that Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. For the body of all men is one and the same, having its composition from one substance; but the one having simply died is cast aside as any ordinary thing; but the one graced with the suffering of martyrdom is so lovely and sought after, as the preceding account has taught. – Gregory of Nyssa, IN PRAISE OF BLESSED THEODORE, THE GREAT MARTYR

As silly and dangerous as this mindset seems, it was still in a similar category of loving the bodies of saints excessively, and not full-blown idolatry. It’s so convenient that we actually possess a written account of how Christians gradually became more obsessed with these tombs and more superstitious in their devotion to these bodies over time, just as Chrysostom predicted would happen (and he wrote at the same time as Gregory), so that no one can say it simply appeared out of nowhere, but had a documented development, becoming mainstream in the 400s, but still opposed by many bishops.

But nothing is sweeter than prayer. If you converse with him in private, you will be able to accomplish much, with no one disturbing you, nor distracting you from your supplication; you have the time also as an ally toward obtaining what you wish. But you turn over lying on a soft bed, and you hesitate to get up? Consider the martyrs lying today on the iron bed, not with a mattress underneath, but with burning coals spread beneath. Here I want to end my discourse, so that you may depart having the memory of the bed fresh and new, and remember it night and day; for even if ten thousand bonds hold us, we will be able to break all easily, and to rise for prayer, by constantly considering this bed. And let us depict not only that [torture] bed, but also the other tortures of the martyrs upon the breadth of our heart. And just as those who make their own houses bright adorn them everywhere with flowery painting; so let us also paint the tortures of the martyrs on the walls of our mind. For that painting is useless (ἀνόνητος), but this one has profit; for this painting requires no money, nor expense, nor any art, but instead of all these things it is enough to use zeal and a noble and sober mind, and through this, as through some most excellent hand, to sketch their punishments.

Let us paint, therefore, in our soul those lying on frying pans, and those stretched over hot coals, and those plunging headlong into cauldrons, and those being sunk in the sea, others being scraped, others being bent upon the wheel, others being thrown from a cliff; and those boxing with wild beasts, and those being led to the pit, and those, as each happened to end their life; so that by the variety of this painting, having prepared our house to be splendid, we may make a suitable lodging for the King of the heavens. For if He should see such paintings in our mind, He will come with the Father, and will make His dwelling with us, together with the Holy Spirit; and our mind will henceforth be a royal house, and no improper thought will be able to enter, since the memory of the martyrs, like some brilliant painting, is always stored within us, and sending forth a great radiance, and with God the King of all dwelling continually within us. – John Chrysostom, On Holy Martyrs

“Paulinus of Nola said there should be paintings on all the walls!”

Here is a quotation some Cathodox will use (it’s actually a summarized version of many statements from Paulinus): “Let all the walls be covered with painted stories.” But he never says anyone should bow to them or offer them incense. Writing in the early 400s, he’s in the same camp as many post-Nicene writers who think paintings should be on the walls of church buildings.

Dear bishop, enter here singing songs and hymns. Commend my vow to the Lord, and join your Joy to my vow in celebration of the feast of the patron we share. It will be a fit moment for you to beseech the Lord for this sinner when He rejoices at the honour paid to His confessor. With Felix as guide, your prayers will hasten easily on their path, for he will be your forerunner in reaching God’s ears. If you dedicate your devoted service with offerings of Psalms, Christ will come down benevolently inclined to clothe His people and His shrine in a holy Cloud, pouring a snowy mist over the hidden sanctuary. Now I want you to look at the paintings along the portico, with which it is adorned in extended line. Crane your neck a little till you take in everything with face tilted back. The man who looks at these and acknowledges the truth within these empty figures nurtures his believing mind with representations by no means empty. The paintings in fact depict in the order prescribed by faith all that aged Moses wrote in his five books.

…

This was why we thought it useful to enliven all the houses of Felix with paintings on sacred themes, in the hope that they would excite the interest of the rustics by their attractive appearance, for the sketches are painted in various colours. Over them are explanatory inscriptions, the written word revealing the theme outlined by the painter’s hand. So when all the countryfolk point out and read over to each other the subjects painted, they turn more slowly to thoughts of food, since the feast of fasting Is so pleasant to the eye. – Paulinus of Nola (354 – 431 AD), Poem 27