Bass [Old] on Nostr: I am familiar with the protestant position, as I was initially programmed by a ...

I am familiar with the protestant position, as I was initially programmed by a reformed seminary and to this day attend a protestant congregation.

1. Its only ahistorical if you are exceptionally selective with who you qualify as the church. For example, the church came together in the 3rd ecumenical council to discuss the pushback by some who werent comfortable calling Mary the mother of God, however, the title was accepted as such. They have reason to believe that asking Mary for intercessory prayer was common even around 250ad. I understand that Luther decided that all ecumenical councils had erred and that his subjective discernment was accepted by all branches of protestantism going forward, but even the most liberal of churches recognize the first 3 to 4 councils as having some validity.
2. If all images are a violation of the 2nd commandment, why did God command Moses to create the Arc, the vestments, etc in the likeness of created things right after being given the commandments? It seems that there is some context that is missing in the protestant interpretation.
3. Its clear from the writings of all church fathers that they ascribed worship to God alone, not creation. Their apologetics and homilies never indicated otherwise from my limited knowledge. I simply dont understand the foundation of this position, I hope im just misunderstanding.

Regardless of appearances, the point I was making is that initial presuppositions towards the 'enemies' position and worldview become in a sense a self fulfilling prophecy. If you don't try to understand the oppositions argument to the extent that you yourself can articulate it to their satisfaction, then you are but a noisy pebble in the shoe rather than the harbinger of humility and truth.

Bless you brother