Pictures of Jesus.

prodromos said:

The Respect Bees Have For Holy Icons

In the region of Kapandriti near Athens, a wonderful thing happens. Ten years ago, a devout beekeeper named Isidoros Ţiminis, thought to place in one of his hives an icon of the Crucifixion of the Lord. Soon thereafter, when he opened the hive, he was amazed that the bees showed respect and devotion to the icon, having "embroidered" it in wax, yet leaving uncovered the face and body of the Lord. Since then, every spring, he puts into the hives icons of the Savior, the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and the result is always the same.​

Click to expand...

That's amazing.

When you read the Scriptures, you see an image of Christ, yes? An involuntary image of what your brain thinks he may have looked like, yes? It's fairly impossible to not see an image of Christ while you're reading about him and his interactions with people. So what is wrong with putting that image on paper?

KuriosIesousChristos said:

When you read the Scriptures, you see an image of Christ, yes? An involuntary image of what your brain thinks he may have looked like, yes? It's fairly impossible to not see an image of Christ while you're reading about him and his interactions with people. So what is wrong with putting that image on paper?

Click to expand...

"Icons are bad. Mmmkay?"

Jason0047 said:

If there was some kind of repellant added to the painting, what would be his motivation? Well, if such were the case, it's possible he is merely looking for attention.

Click to expand...

Since he had apparently been putting icons into the hives for several years before mentioning this to anybody, it certainly seems unlikely he was after attention.

It is also possible there is no repellant. The point being is that the Bible condemns idolatry and whether it was a super natural event (it was not one of God) and if it was not fraud, then the bees by their very nature are avoiding something they know to be bad by instinct (i.e. because God desires His creation to worship Him in spirit and in truth and He does not desire them to look to false idols or idolatrous imagery).

Click to expand...

What a load of malarky. First you imply a fraudulant act to cause the bees to avoid the persosn depicted on the icons and now you want us to believe the bees avoided them out of some inate disgust. Apparently the cross of Christ is also an abhorant idol according to your reasoning.

Also, if there was bee repellant (such as mint) added to the painting, you said that this would endanger the man's income by doing so. Actually, it is the exact opposite. Doing such a thing would make him more popular by creating a miracle. For who is going to really care to check and or investigate to see if such a miracle was false? The chances of such a thing happening are pretty slim.

Click to expand...

Since there is only one account of this miracle and it was not made public for several years, no facebook page or website selling miracle honey, it seems quite apparent that this is simply a pious Christian sharing his experience for the edification of others. It isn't as if there is a shortage of miracles associated with icons in the Orthodox Church.

And if someone did challenge him and he was not honest in the beginning (and he continued to be dishonest - hypotheically speaking) he could deny it and say that he was unaware that there was mint used in the painting. He could then blame it on the paint company and shift the blame to them.

Click to expand...

They are printed copies of painted icons. Have a nice day.

thecolorsblend said:

Protestants and evangelicals may find this next offensive but here it is anyway. I'm a bit sick and tired of these types who all claim to "take the Bible literally" constantly inventing proof-texts for this or that out of whole cloth, usually based on an abject misunderstanding what is contained in Sacred Scripture.

That guy's post wasn't even presented as a question. It was more like a "gotcha" post as if pasting something from Scripture somehow invalidates my post (which was already supposed to be jokey as it was). If he at least asked "Say, that's something that's always confounded me. Why is it you Catholics (and Orthodox and Anglicans) call that guy who dresses funny 'Father' when something-something the Bible?" I wouldn't have minded. But this snarky "gotcha" stuff really needs to stop. I mean, does he really think a Protestant has never challenged a Catholic with that before? He's the first guy to ever come at me with something like that?

Click to expand...

Agreed. Its a belligerent approach that reflects a certain degree of contempt, and its contempt not backed up by any kind of refutation of the widely known criticisms of that trite cheapshot insult. I like to think by the way that while I am admittefly glib, condescending, scornful and pedantic in my replies, and am admittedly a doctrinaire Orthodox, that I at least try to answer peoples questions with a certain patience, the first time they ask it. There is one lady for example in Controversial Theology who clearly harbors a number of severe misconceptions but I have been unable to bring myself to eviscerate her for it as I dont believe she has the intellectual capacity to fully understand the correct position, and if I am unpleasant towards her it will simply result in the heresy becoming impacted, so to speak.

thecolorsblend said:

"Icons are bad. Mmmkay?"

Click to expand...

I have been having an unpleasant afternoon but this post was greatly comforting; nothing like a good South Park reference to lighten up a theological debate. Alas we must now brace for furious displays of Puritanical intemperance at having indulged in such a moment of intellectual leisure.

Standing Up said:

Oh oh. Now you've done it to yourself.

Click to expand...

Communicate refers to partaking of the Eucharist in the context of ecclesiastical documents (hence "excommunicate" which means to deprive of the Eucharist); I think you might want to consider sitting down for a change!

antletems said:

So, you have never said the Prayer given to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ? The Our Father?

Click to expand...

The Mormons among others refuse to say this prayer. Now I am not going to sot here and shred someone's private prayer life but I will say there are some people who misunderstand what "vain repetitions" are and thus burden themselves in prayer through a horrible compulsion towards avoiding any repetition. Where it gets to be offensive is where such persons then use their flawed understanding (vain repetitions refers to mantras and the vowell-salad of the ancient Gnostic liturgies, which if one reads them seem amusingly reminscent of "Old Macdonald had a farm...") in an attempt to ridicule the liturgical rites of the ancient Church, which can be traced back to the first century,

sculleywr said:

Possibly because liquids don't just stay in one place. They flow and aerosolize and vaporize in heat, and drip when applied. You're assuming that a miracle is faked, not knowing anything about it or how the Orthodox handle miracles. For example, when the Iveron Icon began streaming myrrh, the first thing we did was an exorcism. This is standard protocol regarding miracles in the Orthodox Church. We are naturally skeptical at the beginning. We examine it every which way to make sure that it is real before promoting it.

Click to expand...

When it comes to icons furthermore my understanding is additional precautions have been used in recent years regarding myrhh streaming icons due to fraudsters attempting to produce icons with injected rosewater or other substances to cause a fake myrhh-streaming effect.

KuriosIesousChristos said:

When you read the Scriptures, you see an image of Christ, yes? An involuntary image of what your brain thinks he may have looked like, yes? It's fairly impossible to not see an image of Christ while you're reading about him and his interactions with people. So what is wrong with putting that image on paper?

Click to expand...

However we are encouraged in Orthodoxy to suppress the visual imagination during prayer; for example in saying the Jesus Prayer one should concentrate on the meaning of the words.

I've always had my doubts about anything that symbolizes Christianity outside the Bible. Statues, pictures, icons and even the cross that some wear around their necks is to me an uncomfortable issues seeing that one of the ten commandments says no engraven images.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but we should really take a good look at what we adopt as imagery. Christ said no one could reach the father except through him and that, to me means praying through him. The rest of thise stuff is something that eveybody should determine for themselves is appropriate. I think the crusifix is to inform other human's of what faith we are, but is that a mark of pride in being Christian or is it a statement of exclusiveness to the rest of the world.

As for me, I don't really care if another human being knows at first site what religion I am as long as God knows and he doesn't need a cross hanging from my neck to know that.

Jason0047 said:

If there was some kind of repellant added to the painting, what would be his motivation? Well, if such were the case, it's possible he is merely looking for attention. It is also possible there is no repellant. The point being is that the Bible condemns idolatry and whether it was a super natural event (it was not one of God) and if it was not fraud, then the bees by their very nature are avoiding something they know to be bad by instinct (i.e. because God desires His creation to worship Him in spirit and in truth and He does not desire them to look to false idols or idolatrous imagery).

Side Note:

Also, if there was bee repellant (such as mint) added to the painting, you said that this would endanger the man's income by doing so. Actually, it is the exact opposite. Doing such a thing would make him more popular by creating a miracle. For who is going to really care to check and or investigate to see if such a miracle was false? The chances of such a thing happening are pretty slim.

And if someone did challenge him and he was not honest in the beginning (and he continued to be dishonest - hypotheically speaking) he could deny it and say that he was unaware that there was mint used in the painting. He could then blame it on the paint company and shift the blame to them.


...

Click to expand...

1. Yes it would endanger his income, because income is based on supply as much as demand. Endangering your supply is stupid if you want to make money.

2. You do not know it wasn't from God

3. Iconography is not idolatry, and your saying it doesn't make it true. Scripture doesn't say it's idolatry. You do. IT is your personal interpretation of Scripture.

4. Because of the fact that number 3 in my list is true, you cannot declare that it isn't a miracle from God. Either that, or you're accusing Christians of praying to Satan. So go ahead, tell me that Orthodox Christians are praying to Satan. Say it, or retract your words. Because of the fact that the first thing we do is assume there is a demon involved in a miracle, we exorcise the object(s) in question. When the miracle continues, you must assume that either we are praying to Satan, or God doesn't have power over demons, or that the faith of Christians is not enough, in combination with the amount of fasting and prayer, to cast a demon out of anything. Because the third cannot be true because Scripture says it isn't, and the second is like the third, we are left with the first. Logically, you accused the Christians that consider this a miracle of praying to Satan himself, or at the very least, someone that serves him or a false god. I would be careful with your accusations.

The best way to know if it is a miracle is the answer to the following question: Does it bring people to Christ. And the answer in the case of the beeswax icons is a resounding "yes!" This miracle brings people to God. It draws them closer to Christ. Therefore, it cannot be of the devil. The answer to your accusation of it being of Satan is the same as the answer Christ gave when accused of serving Satan:

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

If Satan were performing this miracle, or the miracle of the Iveron Icon's streaming myrrh, or of the Kursk Icon (one of which happened to the Matushka of the Church I was baptized at), then Satan is rising up against himself, for he turns people to Christ.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

I've always had my doubts about anything that symbolizes Christianity outside the Bible. Statues, pictures, icons and even the cross that some wear around their necks is to me an uncomfortable issues seeing that one of the ten commandments says no engraven images.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but we should really take a good look at what we adopt as imagery. Christ said no one could reach the father except through him and that, to me means praying through him. The rest of thise stuff is something that eveybody should determine for themselves is appropriate. I think the crusifix is to inform other human's of what faith we are, but is that a mark of pride in being Christian or is it a statement of exclusiveness to the rest of the world.

As for me, I don't really care if another human being knows at first site what religion I am as long as God knows and he doesn't need a cross hanging from my neck to know that.

Click to expand...

It says no idols in the Hebrew. Engraved images is a mistranslation of the word for idol. Unfortunately, it is such an accepted mistranslation in English that many versions still use it. Pesel is not the Hebrew word for image, however. In the Greek Septuagint, it is much harder to make this mistake, because the word used is "Eidolon", which is much harder to mistake.

Jason0047 said:

While there are symbols like the cross and the brass serpent that points us to Jesus and the gospel message, by themselves they are nothing.

For idolatry is condemned in the Bible and these symbols (such as the cross and the brass serpent) were not used later on by the apostles in the New Testament as statues or drawings, etc (as a part of their gospel message or in their worship).

1 "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).


...

Click to expand...

I've said this several times, and I will say it again, Iconography is not idolatry. Idolatry is the worship of the image itself. We do not worship the image. We worship God, the whole God, and nothing but God. Do you understand that? Every time you say idolatry, you repeat a lie. Now, you may want to confess that lie and stop repeating it because, truly, you make all of us look bad when you build your strawmen.

sculleywr said:

I've said this several times, and I will say it again, Iconography is not idolatry. Idolatry is the worship of the image itself. We do not worship the image. We worship God, the whole God, and nothing but God. Do you understand that? Every time you say idolatry, you repeat a lie. Now, you may want to confess that lie and stop repeating it because, truly, you make all of us look bad when you build your strawmen.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is because of this that Nicea II anathematized anyone who proposes that idolatry was ever accepted by the Church.

The reality is that the distorted doctrine of Calvin that icons are idols was a restatement of the iconoclast position, which in turn came from Islam. I suspect fewer Protestants would bother us with this rubbish if they knew they were actually defending an Islamicization of Christianity.

I could also point to Unitarianism (which emerged in Eastern Europe near the frontier of the Orthodox lands, just inside former RC territory, actually former Orthodox territory prior to the Union of Brest) as evoking an Islamic theological perspective.

Wgw said:

On the contrary, the Gospel is entirely about icons.

Jesus Christ, iconographically embodying humanity, purifies our fallen nature and glorifies it, redtoring the image tarnished by the fall and making it not just a reflection of but actually a direct portrait of God through the Incarnation.

Human beings in turn attain salvation through the process of Theosis, following in the example of Christ and purifying the fallen human nature through ascesis, almsgiving and most importantly partiicpation in the life-giving mysteries of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, thus becoming iconographic representations of God.

This is the Gospel as understood by the incomparably ancient Orthodox faith; what I have said is not in any sense a novel idea but can be found in the writings of Ss. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysystom, Cyril and others. It is literally the faith expressed by the Apostles in the New Testament, by our Lord "Be ye lerfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," and so on.

To a Protestant, this may seem like an extreme and alien theology, but this is verifiably the faith of the Fathers at Nicea; it is entirely Scriptural and it is the Orthodox interpretation of the Gospel.

Orthodox theology is incarnational theology. Incarnational theology is iconographic theology. Iconographic theology is the theology of deification, the theology of the Gospel as directly understood by the early Church fathers.

Click to expand...

what you describe is contextualization as the broader umbrella term. iconography (specific) is a method of contextualizing the gospel. Jesus Christ embodying humanity is also contextualization by coming in a form that humans can understand and grasp. I can appreciate that iconography can be defined the same as contextualization but, with the exception of your reference to Jesus, you use it very specifically to represent paintings of saints.

Wgw said:

...it is entirely Scriptural...

Click to expand...

you have still yet to show this

Wgw said:

However we are encouraged in Orthodoxy to suppress the visual imagination during prayer; for example in saying the Jesus Prayer one should concentrate on the meaning of the words.

Click to expand...

I am not Orthodox, so I do not try to do what is virtually impossible. It would be very, very difficult and unnatural to not see the "characters" in your mind that you are reading about. I get the concept, but it is just as possible to mentally visualize the story and focus on the words. I do pray the Jesus Prayer on a Chotki, and as I'm doing so I often mentally visualize Jesus' interactions with people as recorded by the Scriptures. It seems odd to me that in Orthodoxy you would be discouraged from visualizing and encouraged to only focus on the words. Isn't the point of icons - imagery - to tell the whole story using all of our senses? You hear the Word, see the Word, visualize the people of the Word, and smell the incense.

thecolorsblend said:

The icons in jewish religion establishes historical precedent.

Your position clearly is that icons are now verboten. When did that change? Who changed it? How can you prove that?

Click to expand...

verboten? not quite. I suggest to de-emphasize them. 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 says "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

the gospel transcends culture and tradition and we don't need to take a certain place, time and culture in history and parrot it today. The gospel will still work when cultures change and elements of culture can be used powerfully represent the gospel so long as they are used responsibly. To what end? "so that by all possible means I might save some"

Root of Jesse said:

You forget...we don't believe the Bible is the only Word of God.

Click to expand...

so you agree then iconography is extra-biblical

DamianWarS said:

you have still yet to show this

Click to expand...

I believe I have shown it via John 1:1-14, however, I feel disinclined to give you an explantion which you could obtain simply by Googling the Second Council of Nicea.

The problem is that your argument, which is built around the contemporary theological idea of contextualization, which was entirely foreign to the early Church fathers (who did not contextualize, hence the fact that every traditional liturgical church uses vestments derived from the court dress of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, which became established as the default clerical attire largely by accident, a use enforced in response to the iconoclasts of the eigth century who could based on their sartological enthusiasm be described as "gallants"), is that it is advanced in willful ignorance of the actual theological precepts that guide the Orthodox Church.

Specifically argument that icons are contextualization, that this contextualization is now superfluous, and that therefore we should de-emphasize iconography, has the effect of ignoring the theological rationale for having icons in the first place. It does not address Nicea II but simply ignores it and dares furthermore to claim that the iconographic thought exuded by Orthodoxy from St. John of Damascus to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, which manifests itself in the architecture of churches, the facial hair of clergy and so on, is in some manner ancilliary to the Orthodox faith.

It might well be that in your denomination icons are secondary, but in Orthodoxy they are essential and integral expressions of the Gospel; from our point of view to even have a church where iconography is de-emphasized is to preach a false Gospel.

KuriosIesousChristos said:

I am not Orthodox, so I do not try to do what is virtually impossible. It would be very, very difficult and unnatural to not see the "characters" in your mind that you are reading about. I get the concept, but it is just as possible to mentally visualize the story and focus on the words. I do pray the Jesus Prayer on a Chotki, and as I'm doing so I often mentally visualize Jesus' interactions with people as recorded by the Scriptures. It seems odd to me that in Orthodoxy you would be discouraged from visualizing and encouraged to only focus on the words. Isn't the point of icons - imagery - to tell the whole story using all of our senses? You hear the Word, see the Word, visualize the people of the Word, and smell the incense.

Click to expand...

The essence of hesychasm is to disable the visual imagination altogether so that one does not perceive the characters or ehat they represent; this was exceedingly difficult to me but of great benefit. One can immerse oneself in prayer in this manner. Of course all this must be done with the advise of ones confessor, otherwise it becomes rather dangerous (although I believe prayer in the manner you outline can also be rather dangerous; there is an extreme need for competent pastoral guidance).