|
Question 73: There is a contradiction between the following two verses in the Old Testament: continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their father's wickedness!“ (Exodus 34:7) and “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; but only for his own guilt shall a man be put to death” (2 Chronicles 25:4). Can you explain this contradiction? (TR)
Answer: The maybe most important of the Old Testament references for the Doctrine of God’s forgiveness and punishment is found in Deuteronomy 5:7-10, the most important part of the text which forms the Ten Commandments (i.e. the Decalogue):
“You shall have no other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
“The same book, Deuteronomy, comes back to this same theme in 7:9-11:
“Understand, then, that the Lord, your God, is God indeed, the faithful God who keeps his merciful covenant down to the thousandth generation toward those who love him and keep his commandments, but who repays with destruction the person who hates him; he does not dally with such a one, but makes him personally pay for it. You shall therefore carefully observe the commandments, the statutes and the decrees which I enjoin you today.“
Then there is also the previously incompletely cited text of God’s appearance as experienced by Moses. Exodus 34: 6-9:
"Thus the Lord passed before him and cried out, 'The Lord, the Lord, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity, continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers' wickedness!' Moses at once bowed down to the ground in worship. Hen he said, 'If I find favor wit you, O Lord, do come along in our company. This is indeed a stiff-necked people; yet pardon our wickedness and sis, and receive us as your own.'"
Deuteronomy 7:10 shows, that God always punishes the individual and does so immediately. On the other hand, He rewards those who love Him “to the thousandth generation“(see above, Deuteronomy 7:9 and also Exodus 34:7).The punishment of sin from the fathers to the sons to the fourth generation does not contradict this, because it refers to the old thinking, which still exists in unchanged patriarchal societies, that four generations make up one extended family. The head of the clan and the clan, which comprises four generations, are seen as one unit, one extended family. Extended families in this sense, and the head of this extended family, form one unit in the thinking and understanding of people living in such communities, and are thus jointly answerable to God.
The above cited verse in 2 Chronicles 25:4 corresponds exactly to the chronologically possibly earlier verse in Deuteronomy 24:16. The seemingly contradicting texts both belong to the same book Deuteronomy and it was therefore not believed that they contradicted each other.
Chapter 18 of the book of the prophet Ezekiel is dedicated entirely to the question of personal responsibility, separate from the traditions already mentioned. Do read the whole chapter, but especially Ezekiel 18:4 and 18:19-23. The prophet addressed his statements in the 18th chapter of his book against a possible misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 5:9 and Exodus 24:7.
Question 74: Is drunkenness a sin? If so, how can Christianity use something that induces intoxication (wine) in prayer, and even more so, in the name of God? (TR)
Answer: Wine is of great importance in the Bible. The extent to which wine was appreciated can be seen in that, according to biblical tradition, Noah, father of the renewed mankind, "planted a vineyard“ (Genesis 9:20). Wine is praised (Judges 9:13; Psalms 104:15); but the Bible also warns against the excessive drinking of wine (Isaiah 5:11 f; Amos 6:6, Proverbs 20:1; 23:31ff), Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach) 19:2; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Timothy 3:3-8; 1 Peter 4:3).
In the book Ecclesiasticus (also called the book of Sirach) 31:25-31 we read:
"Let not wine-drinking be the proof of your strength, for wine has been the ruin of many. As the furnace probes the work of the smith, so does wine the hearts of the insolent. Wine is the very life to man if taken in moderation. Does he really live who lacks the wine which was created for his joy? Joy of heart, good cheer and merriment are wine drunk freely at the proper time. Headache, bitterness and disgrace is wine drunk amid anger and strife. More and more wine is a snare for the fool; it lessens his strength and multiplies his wounds. Rebuke not your neighbor when wine is served, nor put him to shame while he is merry; Use no harsh words with him and distress him not in the presence of others."
Following the logic of the question it would be wrong to use a knife because a knife used wrongly can lead to much harm. With this kind of question, Christian ethics is only concerned with avoiding excesses.
More generally speaking, it can be said that: “for the moral evaluation of the use of medicines, alcohol and drugs, some substances are used to further conviviality and some drugs are used by doctors for the treatment of illnesses. However, to the extent to which certain substances are taken for their intoxicating properties and cause the user to be in a position where he is no longer fully corpus mentis, their use is reprehensible. The use of substances which cause physical or psychological addiction and which result in the weakening or destruction of the user’s moral character and his freedom, is not morally acceptable. One of the pre-conditions for the fulfilling of the purpose of life is that everyone attempts to set his own boundaries, to curb excess or to desist.” (Katholischer Erwachsenen Katechismus. Bd. 2: Leben aus dem Glauben (Freiburg: Herder, 1995), pp. 278.)
Question 75: Can a woman from a different faith be a wet nurse? (TR)
Question 76: May a man drink his wife’s breast milk? (TR)
Answer to both questions: Christian moral teaching leaves it up to the individual Christians to judge questions like the two above according to his own conscience. Only when acts, e.g. like the two above mentioned, should violate ethical principles and basic commandments, or if they would hurt or unnecessarily shock others, would Christians, as well as every other human being, be morally obliged to abstain from these acts.
Question 77: A Muslim woman married to a Christian man suspects that Tunisian relatives cursed the couple and that these curses have now lead to conflicts within and outside the marriage. Do you know anything about the background of such curses? Is there a connection between curses and the Qur’an? Is it possible to fight these curses or to lift them? (DE)
Answer: Not only in rural regions, but also townspeople in the Islamic world are often still superstitious. As with all superstition, in oriental countries too, old women are said to have the power to bind and to dissolve, to call spirits, heal the sick and to predict the future. Many superstitious beliefs have a corresponding basis in the Qur’an. Belief in the jinn is a very good example. They are feared because they can bring illness, bad luck and death. Wearing good luck charms provides protection from evil spirits. If an evil spirit possesses a man, he becomes ill. People who suffer from nervous disorders such as hysteria, epilepsy, melancholy, apoplexia, seizures and palsy, are described by Arabs as “bound“, or, “bound by a jinn”. Turkish people speak of being “possessed by a jinn”. They can only be healed by those whom the jinn serve. The medicines are obtained by evoking the spirits, fumigation, good luck charms, prayers and spells. Others are skilled in enticing the spirits to harm other people. They use amulets and charms, but also magic. The cause of many illnesses is said to be the disastrous power of the eye, known as the “evil eye”. “Evil speech” and “evil smells”, too, can cause much harm. Among the many deflecting and healing rituals, such as amulets and good luck charms, one of the most effective ones against verbal curses is the repetition forty-one times of the phrase mā schāllāh! ("What God wills“). If all this fails, you turn again to an old person or elder (schaikh) or "master“ (Turkish. hoca). (See the entry for ‚Aberglauben’ (by Senay Yola, Munich) in Kreiser/Wielandt (publisher), Lexikon der Islamischen Welt. Stuttgart, 1992.)
According to Christian belief, all traces of superstition are banished through the faith in the omnipresence of the resurrected Jesus Christ and the living connection with Him through the Spirit-given sacraments and other Christian rites, blessings and symbolic acts (i.e. the sacraments).
Question 78: John 1:18 states, that no one has seen God. However, in the Old Testament there are several verses claiming exactly the opposite (Genesis 17:1; 18:1, Exodus 6:3; 24:10; Amos 9:1, etc.). How do you explain this contradiction? (TR)
Answer: John 1:17-18: “(17) Because, while the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (18) No-one has ever seen God. Only the Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.“
John 6:46: “Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; He has seen the Father.“
John 7:29: “I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent me.”
1 John 4:12: "No one has ever seen God. Yet if we love on another, God remains in us and His love is brought to perfection in us.“
All these references from John’s writings in the New Testament refer to Exodus 33:20: Moses on the mountain:
Exodus 33:18-23: “(18)The Moses said, "Do let me see your glory!" (19) He answered, "I will make all my beauty pass before you, and in your presence I will pronounce my name, 'LORD'; I who show favors to whom I will, I who grant mercy to those I will. (20) But my face you cannot see. for no man sees me and still lives." (21) Here, continued the LORD, "is a place near me where you shall station yourself on the rock.(22) When my glory passes I will set you in the hallow of the rock and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. (23) Then I will remove my hand, so that you may see my back; but my face is not be seen."
Commentary on Ex 33:20 : “Between God’s holiness and man's unworthiness there is such a gap that man would have to die if he saw God face to face (see Exodus 19:21; Leviticus 16:2, Numbers 4:20) or even only heard Him (see Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:24-26; see also. 18:16). Therefore, Moses (in Exodus 3:6) and Elijah (in 1 Kings 19:13); and even the Seraphs (in Isaiah 6:2) cover their face before Yahweh. He who remains alive after he has seen God experiences the most grateful astonishment (Genesis 32:31; Deuteronomy 5:24), or religious rapture (Judges 6:22-23); Isaiah 6:5). God rarely grants such grace, Exodus 24:11, as especially to Moses "face to face“ (Exodus 33:11; Numbers 12:7-8, Deuteronomy 34:10, and Elijah in 1 Kings 19:11 seq.). Both will become witness to the transfiguration of Christ, the theophany of the new covenant (Matthew 17:3) and will be, according to Christian tradition, the main representatives of a mystical vision of God (with Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:1 seq.).
In the New Covenant, the "glory“ of God is revealed in Jesus (see Exodus 24:16 and John 1:14; 11:40). No-one has seen the Father, but Jesus the Son alone (John 1:18; 6:46; 1 John 4:12). Humans will meet God face to face only in the blessedness of Heaven (Matthew 5:8; 1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 13:12; see 2 Corinthians 4:4-6)
(From: The New Jerusalem Bible. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985, p. 125.)
Question 79: Genesis 11:5: “The Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men had built.“ Is your Lord short sighted, so that he cannot see from Heaven and has to climb down from it? (TR)
There are two comments to make here:
(1) “The first eleven chapters of Genesis must be considered separately. They give a description in popular style of the origin of the human race; in a simple, pictorial way suited to the mentality of the unsophisticated people, they declare the fundamental truths on which the plan of salvation rests These truths are: the creation by God at the beginning of time, God’s special intervention in the making of man and woman, the unity of the human race, the sin of our first parents, the fall from divine favour and the penalties which their descendants would inherit in consequence of sin. All these are truths which have their bearing on theological doctrine and which are guaranteed by the authority of Scripture; but they are also facts, although we cannot know their nature, as they are presented to us in a mythological form consistent with the mentality of their time and place of origin." (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 11.)
(2) The bold anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament language of God, of which the verse quoted here (Genesis 11:5) is only one of many, are often confusing for the modern reader, even shocking. They can, however, be decoded and understood as Yahweh’s living, pro-active dealings with mankind. These anthropomorphisms illuminate God’s liveliness, that which we now call personality. The seemingly humanized form of speaking of God and faith is protected from obvious misunderstandings on the one hand by the confession that Yahweh transcends space and time. On the other hand, its core and centrality are protected by the way the Hebrews (who had not reflected thoroughly on the terms "spirit“ and "personality“) never describe Yahweh as “„He“, “I“ or “Being“ as such. A. Deissler comments: “This gives expression to the original characteristics of personhood, such as Knowledge and Wisdom, Will and Freedom, and this not only in the subject matter of the speech, but also in the fact of the Speaking One Himself. In this fact, the Old Testament includes everything that relates to "God’s acting towards the outside“, and which thus proclaims the cosmic-creative word, the word that changes history, and the specific-revelatory Word of Yahweh.”(Die Grundbotschaft des Alten Testaments, in B. Dreher u.a. (hg.), Handbuch der Verkündigung 1, Freiburg 1970, S. 162.) Siehe: Theodor Schneider, Was wir glauben. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1988, p. 97.
Question 80: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says: “Women should remain silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the Law says. But if they want to learn about something, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.” Now there are even women priests. Is the gospel no longer valid? (TR)
Answer: Both men and women have been equally created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). There is no different value. Therefore, any discrimination of women, as has happened in the history of human culture and civilization, contradicts the original will of the Creator. The equality and equal worth of men and women remains a holy truth of God’s revelation for the world and for the church.
Through His actions, Jesus clarified the dignity and the equality of women. Women have as much share in His sermons, His actions, and His love for mankind as men. He allowed women to follow Him and allows Himself to be supported by them (Luke 8:1-3), defends a despised prostitute (Luke 7:36-50) and breaks through the limits of his society (John 4:27) and through religious taboos (Mark 5:25-34).
The early church takes Jesus’ intention of stressing that women have the same standing and the same dignity as men, and to free women from the constraints of the restrictions and customs of their time very seriously. Paul goes back to Baptism, in which all previous differences are conquered and all baptized are brought together in the unity of Christ; “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free person, there is not male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27 ff). This fundamental theological statement, which redefines the created order in the new creation that Christ brings, aims at overcoming all previous dividing barriers and restraints.
Translating this theological realization into action was difficult even for Paul (see 1 Corinthians 11:2-16), which contains the sentence quoted above, although Paul called women to full participation in the life of the community and even recognized that they should have leading roles (see Romans 16:1-5) and missionary duties (see Romans 16:7). After Paul's time, however, there were tendencies to assign women increasingly to the domestic sphere (compare 1 Corinthians 14:34 ff with 1 Timothy 2:11-5, and also 1 Peter 3:1-6; Titus 2:5; 1 Timothy 5:11-14). The command that men must love their wives, which is also part of Roman-Greek ethics, is deepened in Ephesians 5:25-32 within the context of the Christian household: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her “ (5:25). The example of the serving love of Christ had to change the man’s attitude towards his wife: giving love instead of practicing patriarchal power. Furthermore, Ephesians 5:21 commands all Christians, men and women: “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ”.
Regarding the teaching of the church, there are some very difficult questions for the current Catholic and orthodox churches. One of the many, widely discussed questions is the problem of allowing women access to the office of priest/pastor. In their human and Christian dignity, women are equal to men. Therefore, women should have an equal position in all aspects of lay discipleship. In 1976, however, the Roman Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith determined again that because of the example of Jesus and the whole tradition of the church, the Catholic Church does not believe that it is possible to admit women to the priesthood. This is not a final dogmatic decision. The arguments of scripture are very important, however, and clearly have to be given more weight than the arguments arising from the request for secular equality between men and women. Furthermore, concerning questions of Office, the Catholic Church does not want to go down a different route from the orthodox Church.
In the Anglican, as well as many protestant churches, women do act as pastors and even bishops.
Question 81: What is the difference between the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants, and which beliefs do they share? (TR)
Answer: (1) Orthodox Christianity and the Catholic Church
The term orthodox Churches refers to those Churches who live Christianity in the form it had developed in Byzantine times. This form developed in the eastern part of the Roman Empire and went beyond the boundaries of the Empire, especially into East Slavia. Many oriental orthodox churches also claim the name orthodox churches for themselves. They differ from the Orthodox Churches in their liturgy and doctrines (although a congruence concerning the dogmatic differences, especially the Christological questions, was reached in 1980). The Catholic eastern Churches differ in their canonical unity with the Bishop of Rome. The term “orthodox”, which is often translated as “of the right faith”, really means “praising (God) in the right way”, and thus points to the central importance of the liturgical dimension in the life of the orthodox churches.
For the orthodox Churches, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (see our book: Christian Responses to Muslims, reproduced at the beginning of this homepage, chapter 6, III 1.2) is still the main reason for retaining the separation of the Churches initiated in 1054 AD. The spreading of the Primacy in the West was, however, not largely due to the Roman desire for power, but to the responsibility for the freedom and the unity of the Church. This primacy was more given to Rome by others, rather than demanded by Rome itself. To legitimize the split, a number of theological issues were and are still cited, for example the rejection of the Latin customs of unleavened bread during the celebration of the Eucharist, the celibacy of priests, or a slightly different wording in the creed which is known as the Filioque clause.
Along with these decisive reasons for the split into the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, different styles of worship and of spirituality also come into play, so that it is not so much the doctrinal differences, but more the way of being a Christian, which have always been the major difference between East and West and are still so today.
The continued existence of the Roman Empire in the East meant the continuation of the empire’s Church, which was founded by King Constantine (reigned 306-337). The emperor was celebrated as God’s representative on Earth. He was a Christ-like, western priest-emperor, bearer of all rights and standing above even the laws of the Church (the Canon Law). His power in the Church, for the development of its doctrines, laws and administration were limited only by God’s law. In this system, which has not always correctly been called caesaropapism, the people and the Church, as well as Church and State were linked as closely as possible. The patriarchs stood markedly below the king and often acted according to his orders. This Church structure continued after the fall of the east Roman empire which was replaced by national rulers, such as the czars of Russia, or the Serbian and Romanian rulers. In all these instances, the result was an independent patriarchy. The practicing of religion was largely limited to the liturgical and remained there unchanged for centuries. There were no major innovations, not in the area of theology nor that of Christian philosophy, political science or art. The Church continued to exist as though time had stood still.
The developments in the West were very different. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Pope emerged strengthened and eventually as representing the only remaining intact ruling body. Subsequently, he provided the spiritual leadership for middle and western Europe and thus became a kind of supra-national link between the Church provinces, and was asked by local and regional rulers to legitimize their claims to power. While in Eastern Europe the king stood above the patriarch and protected him, the balance of power in the West appeared to be exactly the opposite.
Not least because of the Investiture Controversy and its solution, the Western system eventually resulted in the separation of the political and the religious. The importance of this for the development of Western philosophy cannot be emphasized highly enough. Neither Eastern Europe nor the Islamic world have developed anything comparable and therefore remain, as regards this issue, at the same level of development they had reached at the beginning of the medieval times. Only Western Europe moved on from this and dared to enter a new era, pushed forward by the continuous battle for supremacy of the two very different blocks of power, that of the Church and that of the king.
(The previous five paragraphs are largely taken from Peter Antes, Mach’s wie Gott , werde Mensch. Das Christentum. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1999. S. 110-112.)
The deplorable state of affairs in Rome at the time of the Renaissance, in the Bishop’s palaces and among the uneducated clerics (from the 14th century) was for many in the Western church a call for a complete reform. Because of the wars, which often served the interest of the ecclesiastical princes, the plague and periods of rampant hunger, as well as the almost continuous threats of hell fire, the population at large lived in great fear. Many people took to pilgrimages, worshipping relics and paying indulgences, which were often linked to a belief in magic and taken advantage of by pardoners.
Prepared by attempted reforms by J. Wyclif (died 1384) and J. Hus (died 1415), Martin Luther’s (died 1546) criticism of the prevailing situation, which obscured the doctrine of Justification by Faith, fell on fertile ground; it was promoted by the circulation of his writings and his translation of the original texts of the Bible by means of the printing press. Intensified by the political ambitions of the ecclesiastical princes and the lack of real understanding in Rome, Martin Luther’s attempts at reforming the church led instead to the second large schism, which resulted in the separation of the reformed branch under U. Zwingli (died 1531) and J. Calvin (1564), and a little later also the secession of the Anglican church.
As a reaction to the previous disregard for the Bible, as well as overestimating the importance of good deeds, these churches attempted to draw solely on the Spirit of Holy Scripture (sola scriptura), trusting in God's grace (sola gratia) to give glory to God alone (solus Deus). While the reformers, in spite of their criticism of the Roman Church, were still very much linked to the traditions of the church (e.g. they still based their teachings on the old Councils), this changed during the subsequent decades. "Protestant Orthodoxy" (17th century) recognized virtually only the Bible as providing guidance for a Christian life, and they consider it to be wholly inspired by God - even down to the last comma. The term "Protestants" was first coined by these churches themselves as late as in the mid-16th century in England.
The Catholics, who had remained loyal to Rome, took up the calls for renewal by means of the counter-reformation (esp. the Council of Trent, 1545-1563) and endeavoured to put an end to all the prevailing shortcomings and to renew Christian life by means of good ordination training for priests, bishop visitations, encouraging true reverence of saints, Eucharistic piety, etc. However, just like the implementation of the Reformation, the counter-reformation was often marked by violence. In connection with the counter-reformation, which finds its reflection in the arts in the buildings, paintings and writings of the baroque period, the discovery of new continents eventually resulted in a major missionary movement. This also led for the first time to a more intense encounter with other religions.
Question 82: If God is present always and everywhere, how can He be independent of space and time? (TR)
Answer: Precisely because God, the Uncreated, the Transcendent, is beyond all limits of space and time, He can be present always and everywhere.
Question 83: Why did the Jews not accept Jesus and still do not accept him now? (TR)
Answer: In the eyes of many of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries and many other Jewish believers in the subsequent centuries and up to today, Jesus appeared to have violated and still appears to violate, against the most important institutions of the chosen people:
- against the required obedience of the law, of every one of the commandments that have been written down and, in case of the Pharisees, in the interpretation of the laws and commandments handed down orally;
- against the central role of the temple in Jerusalem as the Holy place, God’s special dwelling place;
- against belief in the one and only God, whose glory no man can be part of.
(Cf.. Katechismus der Katholischen Kirche, no. 576.)
Question 84: Do Christians pray to icons and sculptures? (TR)
Answer: In its fourths part of its explanation of the first of the "Ten Commandments” the Catechism of the Catholic Church comments on the last word of the first Commandment : “You shall not make for yourself a graven image“:
2129 The divine command prohibits any representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "You saw no form at all on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore, not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or a woman...." (Deut 4:15-16). It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "greater is he than all his works" (Sirach [Ecclesiasticus] 43:28 (30). He is "the original source of beauty." (Wisdom 13:3).
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent (see Num 21:4-9; Wisdom 16:5-14; John 3:14-15) the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim (see Ex 25:10-22; 1 Kings 6:23-28; 7:23-26).
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts of the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype" (St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18, 45) and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." (Council of Nicaea II: DS 601; Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 67). The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone.
"Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2-2, 81, 3, ad 3).
It goes without saying that in this context, the meaning of the word "image“, also, refers to icons and sculptures.
This page was translated by Erika Baker and Leanne Cvetan.
|
