Pictures of Jesus.

[Wgw]

Indeed, St. Luke the Evangelist was an iconographer credited with painting the first icon of the Theotokos, from life. Thus even icons of Mary are based on the real life appearance. It is only in the case of certain relatively obscure saints where iconography has presumably been forced to make a guess; iconography as a whole represents the largest and most doverse collection of portraits in existence the vast majority of which are based on the appearance of the subject in life, albeit stylized as a rule in order to represent the glorification of Theosis.

The Orthodox faith in the richness of its iconography is so vastly more dynamic and vibrant than degenerate iconoclastic Christianity that I have reached a point in my life where the sight of a church bereft of icons makes me ill. I recently saw a 3D computer model of the Hagia Aophia before its conversion into a mosque, but the mere sight of it devoid for technical reasons of iconography was deeply unpleasant to behold.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

SO Christ isn't God. Thanks for saying that. The only way an image of Christ is NOT an image of God is if Christ is not God.

Please do not accuse me falsely of something I do not believe. I believe Jesus is God. I don't need a false image of Christ to know that Jesus is God. The Scriptures tell me that Jesus is the second person of the Godhead; It is not some picture. Pictures are not divinely inspired. It is Scripture that is divinely inspired.

will make this real big, because you're falsifying...No, I'll directly say it. You're lying about the Icons. You have been told SEVERAL times, that the Icons are images of Christ. You have made NO attempt to discredit this, because you CAN'T. Therefore, you are either being intentionally deceitful, or you are simply ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you, which is indirectly deceitful.

Does the Bible mention certain symbols? Yes. But symbols or icons outside of Scripture, such as drawings of Jesus do not exist.

An Icon is a TRUE Icon of Christ if the intention of its creation was to represent Christ.

So anyone can draw whatever image they like of Christ and it is a true representation of Him? Sorry. That doesn't make any sense. That would be like me drawing a picture of Abraham Lincoln so as to represent George Washington. It would be a lie.

you have ZERO authority...Nay, NEGATIVE authority to declare something to be not an image of Christ because YOU do not determine the intentions of OTHERS.

Sorry, I disagree. My authority is the Word of God which is against folks creating false images of God.

, please address, DIRECTLY, the fact that you are either judging the intents of the heart of men, and are therefore claiming an ability equal to God's, or that you are intentionally ignoring things that you cannot answer.

So you believe that nobody is worshiping God by picturing Him in a false way as they worship Him? What gives you that idea?

Please address how you PROVE an image is a false image of Christ, without judging the intentions of the makers. If you cannot prove SOMETHING one way or the other, at least admit that it is your PERSONAL interpretation of Scripture, and is therefore binding in no way upon others.

God has intended His Word to have a very specific meaning when it comes to His Commands. Somebody going beyond what God meant in regards to His Commands (that is obvious) will not be able to throw down the "interpretation card" when they face God. They will be without excuse.

Did you consider the fact that the people who compiled your Bible had Icons EVERYWHERE, at least three authors of Scripture were iconographers, and consider the fact that Iconoclasm is an ISLAMIC doctrine.

Verses please.

Or will you simply repeat the same tired message, which will result in me simply blocking you as someone not interested in fruitful discussion?

Not everyone is going to agree with you in what you believe.

You decide whether there is fruitful discussion by deciding whether to parrot the same unproven accusations without putting evidence on the table. Remember, you are accusing 95% of Christians since the Apostles of being idolaters, including the Apostles themselves.

Prove that this is true with the Bible.


...

 

[Wgw]

In response to paragraph 1, it was the apostolic Church that deemed the books of the New Testament to be divinely inspired and the same Church required the use of icons as a recognition of the reality of the Incarnation. Iconography of the incarnate Word is based directly on His own image based on the traditions of the Apostles and the Icon Not Made By Hands (the Image of Edessa or Mandylion).

In re: para 2, images of the Lord do exist and the fact that you are unaware of them is an unfortunate consequence of the destructive influence of Islam on the Church of Constantinople in the eighth century and the idiocy of Calvin in assuming this was the historic faith (he was unaware of the ancient icons in the catacombs of Rome from the first and second century, the sixth century iconography at St. Catherine's Monastery, et cetera).

In re: para 3, your point is valid but irrelevant since we have images that reflect the actual appearance of the Lord.

In re: para 4, The Word of God is Christ (John 1:1), who conferred the authority to compile and interpret scripture on the Church. The church determined that icons of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove or as tongues of fire on Pentecost are acceptable; we do not however depict God the Father because He has not become incarnate.

In re: para 5, the icon is merely venerated, it is not worshipped as though it were a physical manifestation of God. You are in fact being judgemental in ascribing to the faithful an intent which they lack; I recognize that you do not intend to deny the reality of the incarnation but are merely poorly catechized, whereas you are actually ascribing intent as opposed to mere implicit belief on the Orthodox faithful.

In re: para 6, the Church, against which we were promised the Gates of Hell would not prevail, determined iconoclas, to be a heresy, and between AD 860 and the mid 16th century this view was held by all Christians. By your argument, this means that all Christians between the end of iconoclasm and the emergence of Calvinism are damned. Which would mean that the Gates of Hell had prevailed against the Church, and Jesus Christ lied to us, or the NT is corrupt and unreliable.

In re: para 7, all verses in the New Testament verify the veracity of this claim, because the Church wrote, compiled, edited and canonized this body of scripture, and the same Church also accepted as part of Holy Tradition that of which Sculley spoke.

In re: para 9, the promise by our alord that the Gates of Hell would not prevail proves this point. Matthew 16:17-19.

 

[Standing Up]

Indeed, St. Luke the Evangelist was an iconographer credited with painting the first icon of the Theotokos, from life.

You're losing credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luke_painting_the_Virgin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon#Luke.27s_portrait_of_Mary

 

[Wgw]

You're losing credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luke_painting_the_Virgin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon#Luke.27s_portrait_of_Mary

There is no evidence there that St. Luke did not paint the theotokos and much compelling evidence in support of the tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

There is no evidence there that St. Luke did not paint the theotokos and much compelling evidence in support of the tradition.

Read the links. No one thinks Luke painted the picture, but was a drawing from 300-800 years later.

 

[Wgw]

Read the links. No one thinks Luke painted the picture, but was a drawing from 300-800 years later.

The Orthodox Church does not believe that St. Luke's painting is intact, nor did I claim otherwise.

 

[DamianWarS]

One of the Ten Commandments says we are not to make an image of anything up in Heaven. Jesus is at the right hand of God in Heaven. Granted, many Christians are not bowing down to these images, but many of them DO think the popular drawings of Jesus are a representation of Jesus Christ (Who is the One we worship). However, nobody truly knows what Jesus really looked like today. These drawings are only representations of artist's imaginations. It's not truth. It's a promotion of untruth. In other words, there are many Christians who worship and pray to Jesus visualizing in their mind that He looks like a white American or European when in reality he was actually "Semitic" (i.e. Semtic is a word taken from the word "Shem", one of Noah's sons). Semitic people are mid tone in complexion. For Jesus was a Hebrew (i.e. a Jew). He is not a white American / European. Now, there has been a few semitic renditions of Jesus, but again: This would not be an accurate image of Jesus and what he really looks like.

I think it is bad enough that people are making images of him, then they have to make things even worse by erasing His Jewish heritage by making him into a white American or European when he is actually Semitic type person in appearance. So every time someone posts an image of Jesus (Which is usually a white person like myself), I say, "That is not Jesus." We do not know what He actually looks like. So it is my admonishment to all those out there who do posts pictures of Jesus, to stop displaying images of Him as if this was Jesus. Yes, we can read a comic to our kids that might have a comic rendition of Jesus so they can learn the Bible, but it must be explained to them that this is not what Jesus really looks like. What say you?


...

Although I don't think there is anything wrong with a painting of Jesus, even a white Jesus, I do think there is some truth to the op. These paintings can and have been used similar to a good luck charm. Some hang it in special places for protection (like over a bed) or go through certain rituals with these pictures in prayer or day to day living. A cross or bible are also examples of a potential misunderstood values of Christianity.

People have a tendency to wrap luck around ritual and objects of luck. Sometimes christian spiritualize it and take what they consider to be "Holy" items and they treat them as if they have power. It's the same thing just we just replace the word "luck" with "Holy".

Examples can be kissing a cross, wearing it around your neck for protection, using the physical book of the bible to ward off evil, praying to Jesus while looking at his painting. These actions standing alone don't have to be anything but typically are irresponsible for the believers to engage in because it confuses how we approach Jesus and can blur the gospel (even if we know better)

A physical cross is nothing, the physical bible is just paper and a painting is just a painting. Sometimes churches perpetuate these values by ornate displays, rituals and spiritual jargon around objects. It's not so much that these things are wrong but they do tend to create misguided beliefs through strong connections with our salvation to rituals and objects. We say one thing (like a painting means nothing) but the way we actually live our day to day may contradict our head knowledge. (Like treating a painting like a good luck charm). Such things turn christianity into a system of pagan values.

Perhaps extreme but I believe churches today need to have a wide sweep of de-emphasizing non-biblical values and strongly emphasizing the biblical ones. For example the Lord's supper is a biblical value but an ornate altar at the front of a church is not. We think it is because it sound spiritual and is "themed" after real things in the bible but no where in the bible does it say for such items to be valued within our churches. Is it wrong? Not really but I believe can be irresponsible to the gospel and confusing to the general masses.

 

[GoingByzantine]

A physical cross is nothing, the physical bible is just paper and a painting is just a painting. Sometimes churches perpetuate these values by ornate displays, rituals and spiritual jargon around objects. It's not so much that these things are wrong but they do tend to create misguided beliefs through strong connections with our salvation to rituals and objects. We say one thing (like a painting means nothing) but the way we actually live our day to day may contradict our head knowledge. (Like treating a painting like a good luck charm). Such things turn christianity into a system of pagan values.

To an extent I can completely see where you are coming from, physical objects certainly can become objects of idolatry or "good luck charms". Physical objects can also help people grow closer to God. It really depends on the individual and their faith formation.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Just communicating with the dead is forbidden in the Bible. It is no different than using an Ouja board.

...

Take out your Bible and read 1 Corinthians 12:27, which tells us that we are all members of the Body of Christ. Then flip pages over to John 3:16, which tells us that through faith we have eternal life with Christ.

When you combine this information it should become obvious that true believers don't die, they join the lord in heaven. Nobody is communicating with the dead, they are communicating with fellow members of Christ's body.

 

[DamianWarS]

To an extent I can completely see where you are coming from, physical objects certainly can become objects of idolatry or "good luck charms". Physical objects can also help people grow closer to God. It really depends on the individual and their faith formation.

Which is why I don't say the church should flat out remove such things but rather de-emphasize them. Tradition can hold many good things but never at the expense of the gospel and too often I see the latter.

When the church decides to use a non-biblical forms as tools to teach the gospel, be it tradition or something else, they have a strong responsibly to ensure their contextual message still represents the gospel and understood. Such things should be held on loosely and easily dropped. If we hold too strong of grip on our tradition we may loose sight of what they are suppose to point to.

 

[Wgw]

Which is why I don't say the church should flat out remove such things but rather de-emphasize them. Tradition can hold many good things but never at the expense of the gospel and too often I see the latter.

When the church decides to use a non-biblical forms as tools to teach the gospel, be it tradition or something else, they have a strong responsibly to ensure their contextual message still represents the gospel and understood. Such things should be held on loosely and easily dropped. If we hold too strong of grip on our tradition we may loose sight of what they are suppose to point to.

To de-emphasize physical objects is inherently wrong because it inclines us towards the theology of the Docetae or Gnostics, who denied the reality of the incarnation and viewed matter as evil. Incarnational theology is iconographic theology; one cannot have a de-materialized, purely intellectual faith in Christ without doing violence to His humanity.

It is for this reason that the Oriental Orthodox have always had icons and for this reason that the Eastern Orthodox have required them since the seventh ecumenical council.

 

[Wgw]

Which is why I don't say the church should flat out remove such things but rather de-emphasize them. Tradition can hold many good things but never at the expense of the gospel and too often I see the latter.

When the church decides to use a non-biblical forms as tools to teach the gospel, be it tradition or something else, they have a strong responsibly to ensure their contextual message still represents the gospel and understood. Such things should be held on loosely and easily dropped. If we hold too strong of grip on our tradition we may loose sight of what they are suppose to point to.

Also, it should be noted the Bible contains and represents the Gospel message, which was taught by the Church orally before the four canonical books were written (which is why this message is also present in a decentralized form in the Pauline epistles).

The NT was written by and derives its authority from the Church, not vice versa.

 

[MrMoe]

Take out your Bible and read 1 Corinthians 12:27, which tells us that we are all members of the Body of Christ. Then flip pages over to John 3:16, which tells us that through faith we have eternal life with Christ.

When you combine this information it should become obvious that true believers don't die, they join the lord in heaven.

Yes we do, we die physically. Hebrews 11:13 talks about all those who died in faith. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 talks about the dead in Christ.

Nobody is communicating with the dead, they are communicating with fellow members of Christ's body.

Jason0047 and the bible are talking about those who have physically died, not the spiritually dead.

 

[Wgw]

However, there is a difference between spiritual and physical death and I think the charge of necromancy cannot be leveled against saints whose soteriological status is a known quantity. Beyond that, the Orthodox do not attempt to obtain any information from them, and regard all such incidents with suspicion, as per Galatians 1:8-9.

 

[DamianWarS]

Also, it should be noted the Bible contains and represents the Gospel message, which was taught by the Church orally before the four canonical books were written (which is why this message is also present in a decentralized form in the Pauline epistles).

The NT was written by and derives its authority from the Church, not vice versa.

de-emphasize is not to destroy but keep the objects, just not as emphasized. Also let's emphasize the biblical things first above the non-biblical things.

The NT was written under the authority of not just the Church but the 1st century Church which needs to be the distinction because the Church as we see it today is vastly different than what it looked like in the first century. The early church also used contextual forms to show the gospel that made sense to the audience as all contextual messages should. For example icons told a story and taught scripture and as such were meaningful to the audience. Today they still tell that story but that focused is trumped by the focus of upholding tradition. So the icons no longer magnify the gospel but rather their own tradition which is a lopsided. The forms we do use should always magnify the gospel first before anything else.

The purpose of the icons was about contextualization but today we cannot call almost 2000 year old practices contextualization because the context (audience, culture, time, etc...) have all changed; instead it is called tradition and tradition does not communication the same message. Fighting for tradition for the sake of tradition only magnifies ourselves, not God and fighting for tradition for the sake of the gospel is getting the cart before the horse.

 

[Standing Up]

However, there is a difference between spiritual and physical death and I think the charge of necromancy cannot be leveled against saints whose soteriological status is a known quantity. Beyond that, the Orthodox do not attempt to obtain any information from them, and regard all such incidents with suspicion, as per Galatians 1:8-9.

Funny, one then prays into the air, as a shadow boxer beats wind. To what end? Go to the One who can provide information.

 

[Wgw]

de-emphasize is not to destroy but keep the objects, just not as emphasized. Also let's emphasize the biblical things first above the non-biblical things

Icons are entirely biblical. De-emphasis is simply soft iconoclasm, an attempt to dilute the pure unadulterated faith of the Apostles to suit the capricious sensibilities of liberal Protestantism.

 

[Wgw]

The NT was written under the authority of not just the Church but the 1st century Church which needs to be the distinction because the Church as we see it today is vastly different than what it looked like in the first century

The Orthodox Church is essentially the same as the first century church; the only changes are essentially of an aesthetic nature; not being an illegal "superstitio" under Roman law has facilitated the construction of monumental churches, the desing of more splendid vestments, and the composition of greatly improved music. In most respects however the first century church operated in conditions much closer to our contemporary situation than for example in the tenth century, in that Christianity is once again becoming a persecuted minority religion scorned by a decadent regime; modern entertainments and sexual vices take us uncomfortably close to ancient Rome.

What is more Orthodoxy is the valid, legitimate apostolic faith; her bishops posess the same authority as the apostles, and are their direct successors. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 123rd successor of St. Peter; the Pope of Alexandria is the successor of St. Mark, and so on.

 

[Wgw]

The early church also used contextual forms to show the gospel that made sense to the audience as all contextual messages should. For example icons told a story and taught scripture and as such were meaningful to the audience. Today they still tell that story but that focused is trumped by the focus of upholding tradition. So the icons no longer magnify the gospel but rather their own tradition which is a lopsided. The forms we do use should always magnify the gospel first before anything else.

Icons were not used nor their existence justified for example at Nicea II as a means of visual story telling; this idea is a conceit of contemporary Protestantism which is unsupported by archaeology and surviving literature from the classical world. Early Christians tended to be well off and urban (its no coincidence that "pagan" derives from "paganus" meaning something like "country bumpkin.") Christians were rather more likely to be literate prior to the great expansion of the Church in the fourth century. Now iconoclasm and Nicea II occurred during the Dark Ages, a time in which the church would have beneditted from pictoral storytelling, but this rationale was not presented as a theological justification for anathematizing iconoclasm and mandating the use of iconography.

Rather the reasons for iconography are to express the incarnation of God the Word and the salvific process of theosis. As such their function is integral to the proclamation of the Gospel and cannot be de-emphasized. Icons in no way detract from the Gospel but are essential to it. What is more the Gospel itself lies at the heart of Holy Tradition; in Orthodoxy there is no differentiation between scripture and tradition, since it is the Church which confers authority.