Pictures of Jesus.

sculleywr said:

Icons do not disagree with biblical values in any way, shape, form, or fashion when used according to the way that is taught in the Church. What Iconodules, like myself, are saying is that regardless of your opinion, Icons are directly tied into the Incarnation, and they are not idols. And it is necessary for one to believe that, since God became man, He can be depicted in an image of the man He became. That is necessary not because we value Icons. We value Icons because that is a necessary part of our Faith. God became man. That is core to the gospel. It is a simple result of the Incarnation that God can be depicted in images.

Also, I bring up liturgy because it is a command of Scripture, and not a simple guideline. It is the way the early Church worshiped because they also saw worship as liturgical. The word "Leitourgia" is used several times in the New Testament, as well.

Click to expand...

I am not calling icons idolatry. I think they are irresponsibly handled and it leads to idolatry within the church but icons themselves do not have to be idolatry. It is references that they are essential part of faith with not scripture support which I am calling out. There have been broad definitions of icons used like contextualization when spoken of the incarnation of Jesus but then it is paralleled with a very specific practice. No doubt iconography is a form of contextualization and contextualization is at the heart of the gospel but this does not mean iconography is at the heart of the gospel.

Since you want to say liturgy is a commandment of scripture (assuming you mean it is still an active commandment) I will allow you to cite the reference. "Leitourgia" is a common greek word and it has no inherent spiritual meaning. Its proper meaning is a the office of a public servant but it can also mean to serve in the military. Biblically speaking it is commonly used to represents someone's service. We should not be in the practice of spiritualizing greek words to elevate them to something they were never meant to be. For example "bishop" is from the greek word "episkopos" and it properly means an overseer typically used for government. Today the word may still have traces of its original meaning but it is laced with spiritualized jargon turning it into a word that it was never intended to be, which is a common greek word.

Greek is not the "Holy language" and we should not be taking its common words and spiritualize them. I appreciate it has happened to such a point that the words taken out of their greek context are now common english words, like baptise (which just means submersion) But we need to then responsibly define these words and not just use them as spiritual jargon to justify the practices of a tradition or doctrine. If you are going to say that something is biblical you are going to have to start citing the examples because from what I see you are not responsibly communicating what scripture actually says.

Wgw said:

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.

Click to expand...

That my friend is a lie of the devil. It's one thing to argue the importance of your icons but you just stepped over the line.

DamianWarS said:

Since you want to say liturgy is a commandment of scripture (assuming you mean it is still an active commandment) I will allow you to cite the reference. "Leitourgia" is a common greek word and it has no inherent spiritual meaning. Its proper meaning is a the office of a public servant but it can also mean to serve in the military. Biblically speaking it is commonly used to represents someone's service. We should not be in the practice of spiritualizing greek words to elevate them to something they were never meant to be. For example "bishop" is from the greek word "episkopos" and it properly means an overseer typically used for government. Today the word may still have traces of its original meaning but it is laced with spiritualized jargon turning it into a word that it was never intended to be, which is a common greek word.

Click to expand...

Well I must say I admire your pedantry, for engaging in this detailed etymological exposition; I consider pedantry and underrated virtue and take great personal delight in being pedantic myself. To that end, I will propose your etymological excursus is essentially nominal and superficial; the underlying semantics of the word "liturgy" essentially refer to the Eucharist (which is a Biblical term, Eucharistos is in the Greek NT text and is used in a Eucharistic sense), or the mass, or Holy Communion, or the Lord's Supper, (or Qurbono Qadisho, Raza, Soorp Badarak, etc.) or whatever euphemism du jour one wishes to employ, combined of course with the related service of the other six Sacraments (which have the ultimate effect of facilitating Eucharistic worship), and the cycle of daily prayer.

However, your etymology, while admirably pedantic, is alas not only superficial and nominal in nature, but also suffers from the very considersble disadvantage of being wrong. For the word leitourgia does appear in a spiritual context in both the Old and New Testaments, used specifically to refer to divine service. In addition, the word was commonly employed to refer to the organization of various festivals in ancient Greece and Rome which had a religious character. Recall that in Rome, the priests were primarily politicians in charge of fonancing and conducting various elaborate religious rites, and with divination, which is one reason why politicians like Julius Caesar often served in offices such as the flamine dias, the pontifex maximus, and so on. So whereas in a very early use of the word leitourgia might well apply to something like military service, by the first century under the influence of Greco-Roman religious values this term had the unambiguous sense of referring to the conduct of various forms of divine worship, which is why the translators of the Septuagint a few hundred years before had chosen to employ it.

What is more, leitourgia has in Eastern Christianity acquired a deep spiritual meaning at least as stro as the use of the word "mass" in the Roman rite. Unlike leitourgia, mass has an undeniably secular etymology, being derived from Ite, missa est. Which essentially means "Go, it is the dismissal." Yet I would hope that no one would be so rabidly anti-Catholic as to deny that this is a quintessentially spiritual word in the Western Christian tradition; liturgy has the same meaning in the Christian East, and what is more is also a Biblical word, a word commonly used in a religious context well before the birth of Christ.

DamianWarS said:

am not calling icons idolatry. I think they are irresponsibly handled and it leads to idolatry within the church but icons themselves do not have to be idolatry. It is references that they are essential part of faith with not scripture support which I am calling out. There have been broad definitions of icons used like contextualization when spoken of the incarnation of Jesus but then it is paralleled with a very specific practice. No doubt iconography is a form of contextualization and contextualization is at the heart of the gospel bu

Click to expand...

I think its a novel idea to say that contextualization is at the heart of the Gospel, in that it implies a superficiality to the Incarnation. To rebut your earlier post still further, I consider it an act of blasphemy to refer to the Incarnation as an act of contextualization. Contextualization properly understood is a contemporary theological idea, entirely alien to the Orthodox faith, that one should endeavour to relate the principles of religion to a society rather than merely translate them. It belongs to the sphere of communication or expression.

In contrast, the incarnation belongs to the realm of sanctification. Icons of the Lord in turn, and of those persons who have made their own lives iconographic representations of the Lord, are in turn not a communication of the idea of incarnation in the abstract sense implied by the neologism "contextualization", but rather, are a form of veneration in and of themselves that facilitates further veneration. They are also non-representationally soteriological in that their existence venerates the salvific process of theosis, which is inherently edifying, however, it is not inherently for the purpose of veneration. Icons are not painted as a form of artistic expression or to serve as some form of didactic process, rather they are written in and according to the tradition of the Church as an integral component of incarnational theology and veneration, which is why for example icons of the Lord and of a persons patron saint are enclosed with the deceased in their casket prior to burial. One cannot claim that the relationship the Orthodox have with icons is anything other than the relationship anyone might have with a photograph of a lover, spouse or chuld they carry on their person.

Grafted In said:

That my friend is a lie of the devil. It's one thing to argue the importance of your icons but you just stepped over the line.

Click to expand...

So you are accusing myself and the Holy Orthodox Church of being mouthpieces of Satan? Dont call me friend, heretic.

DamianWarS said:

so you agree then iconography is extra-biblical

Click to expand...

In a sense, so is the Church, as it existed before one word of the New Testament was written.

Wgw said:

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!

Click to expand...

Funny. It has zip to do with the Eucharist. You're communicating in violation of your law.

Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images.

Standing Up said:

Funny. It has zip to do with the Eucharist. You're communicating in violation of your law.

Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images.

Click to expand...

Communication in the context of ecclesiastical documents refers to partaking of the Eucharist. Otherwise it would be impossible for our Orthodox priests to evangelize Calvinists, and websites like Orthodox-Reformed Bridge would be impossible.

If you believe I am anathema for attemptig to explain the theology of icons to you Inwould be more than happy to gove you the contact information for my bishop so that you can attempt to procure my excommunication (which would require a working knowledge of Turoyo Syriac or Syrian Arabic by the way as the English skills of His Eminence are lacking).

Also for that matter I doubt you would have the nerve to properly address His Eminence based on his titles "Your Eminence, Archbishop, or Mor,mehich roughly translates as "My Lord" or "Master", so I would imagine that would prove a still further impediment to having me deprived of the mysteries.

DamianWarS said:

I am not calling icons idolatry. I think they are irresponsibly handled and it leads to idolatry within the church but icons themselves do not have to be idolatry. It is references that they are essential part of faith with not scripture support which I am calling out. There have been broad definitions of icons used like contextualization when spoken of the incarnation of Jesus but then it is paralleled with a very specific practice. No doubt iconography is a form of contextualization and contextualization is at the heart of the gospel but this does not mean iconography is at the heart of the gospel.

Since you want to say liturgy is a commandment of scripture (assuming you mean it is still an active commandment) I will allow you to cite the reference. "Leitourgia" is a common greek word and it has no inherent spiritual meaning. Its proper meaning is a the office of a public servant but it can also mean to serve in the military. Biblically speaking it is commonly used to represents someone's service. We should not be in the practice of spiritualizing greek words to elevate them to something they were never meant to be. For example "bishop" is from the greek word "episkopos" and it properly means an overseer typically used for government. Today the word may still have traces of its original meaning but it is laced with spiritualized jargon turning it into a word that it was never intended to be, which is a common greek word.

Greek is not the "Holy language" and we should not be taking its common words and spiritualize them. I appreciate it has happened to such a point that the words taken out of their greek context are now common english words, like baptise (which just means submersion) But we need to then responsibly define these words and not just use them as spiritual jargon to justify the practices of a tradition or doctrine. If you are going to say that something is biblical you are going to have to start citing the examples because from what I see you are not responsibly communicating what scripture actually says.

Click to expand...

Leitourgia literally means "ordered form of worship". It is not used in ancient Greek literature for disorganized or unscripted services. It is always used in referenced to ordered worship services. This is further reinforced in the early Christian literature, which uses the word and then describes ordered approaches to the sacraments, such as the Didache describing the Baptism service.

The letters of the New Testament were not intended to be comprehensive guides to worship. Because it is the Modus Operandi of God to give instructions about worship, the lack of instructions cannot be taken as a lack of requirement for an order to worship.

The reference of essential doctrine is the doctrine that Christ became man and could be depicted in the form of an Icon. It is essential to believe God became man. And it is essential to believe that He is human in ALL respects, including the ability to be depicted. If you haven't read about how we approach Icons, it would be best to read "Introducing the Orthodox Church: Its Faith and Life", by Father Anthony Coniaris. He puts forth a very good, measured approach, which is the Orthodox approach to Icons. In every Orthodox teaching on Icons, they are treated with veneration, but not worship, and the doctrine's explanations are always explaining the difference between veneration and worship.

Orthodox Christianity, and early Christian literature, views the Icon as necessary to faith because they always have been. It wasn't until Muslims had influence of Christians that they were considered idols in any way. The idea that Iconography can lead to idolatry is a Muslim idea. It didn't come from Scripture.

Grafted In said:

That my friend is a lie of the devil. It's one thing to argue the importance of your icons but you just stepped over the line.

Click to expand...

Icons are considered essential because the Incarnation of the Lord JEsus Christ is a necessary doctrine in the Faith. The Seventh Council said that very thing.

Standing Up said:

Funny. It has zip to do with the Eucharist. You're communicating in violation of your law.

Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images.

Click to expand...

The word "Communicate" has more than one definition. In the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, it is always in reference to Communion when it is used in the Canons. Please, since you are not an Orthodox seminarian, refrain from defining the words of our Canons. They are our Church teachings, so no matter what you say, they mean what we say they do.

God instructed Moses to make an 'Icon'. A Golden serpent!!

The Cross is 'Our Icon'. Its what we turn to.

antletems said:

God instructed Moses to make an 'Icon'. A Golden serpent!!

The Cross is 'Our Icon'. Its what we turn to.

Click to expand...

ah, WHAT? Please show me in the Bible where God told Moses this. I guess I missed that.

The cross is a representation to other humans. It may or may not represent anything other that a fasshion statement, but that's between that person and God. NOTE: Madona, the singer wears a crusufix. Does that mean she's a Christiam?

antletems said:

God instructed Moses to make an 'Icon'. A Golden serpent!!

The Cross is 'Our Icon'. Its what we turn to.

Click to expand...

Alas most iconoclastic heretics still have crosses; it is only the extreme lunatic fringe of iconoclasm that forbids that degree of symbolism.

I contend, and I think your Church as a whole would agree with me, that the Seventh Ecumenical Council requires the actual presence of icons. That is to say, iconography.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

ah, WHAT? Please show me in the Bible where God told Moses this. I guess I missed that.

The cross is a representation to other humans. It may or may not represent anything other that a fasshion statement, but that's between that person and God. NOTE: Madona, the singer wears a crusufix. Does that mean she's a Christiam?

Click to expand...

Without commenting on Madonna, many non-Christians wear crucifixes or crosses for various reasons. This has no relevance to the problem of iconoclasm. I am sure you will understand if in general I prefer not to condescend to offer remarks on Madonna or other popular entertainers in a theological forum.

Now on the subject of your lack of Biblical knowledge, I would encourage you to avail yourself of Biblehub or Google and not ask us to provide verse numbers for things you rather ought to know before jumping into a debate on iconography. It is deeply frustrating to have chaps who do not even know the basics of the subject matter making various representations and posing questions which have the effect of being non-contributive.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

ah, WHAT? Please show me in the Bible where God told Moses this. I guess I missed that.

The cross is a representation to other humans. It may or may not represent anything other that a fasshion statement, but that's between that person and God. NOTE: Madona, the singer wears a crusufix. Does that mean she's a Christiam?

Click to expand...

Bronze Serpent, not Gold:

Numbers 21:4-9 English Standard Version (ESV)

The Bronze Serpent
4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze[a] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

prodromos said:

To what end?

Click to expand...

People have different motivations. If it is proven they are fake, someone should ask him.

sculleywr said:

Possibly because liquids don't just stay in one place. They flow and aerosolize and vaporize in heat, and drip when applied.

Click to expand...

He could have easily isolated a single frame of bees from the rest of the colony, as you can see each photo shows only one frame, or possibly used a different method we don't know about.

You're assuming that a miracle is faked,

Click to expand...

No, I'm presenting one possibility.

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...

So what were the standard protocol used in this case?

Did They:

.Do a controlled experiment using the same icons but with different bees?
.Do a controlled experiment using the same bees but using different non Christian icons?
.Do a controlled experiment using the same icons and bees but printed on different materials?

antletems said:

Bronze Serpent, not Gold:

Numbers 21:4-9 English Standard Version (ESV)

The Bronze Serpent
4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze[a] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

Click to expand...

could I get a little help, please. I can see vaguly a reasonable simularity to that image being an Icon, but something just doesn't click as far as it being so, according to my undersatanding of an Icon.
That image was a way of many to be healed from a judgement that God had already set down for the disobediance of the Israelites. He had put the firy snakes there and those who wished to follow God need only look upon the image to be saved. Those who didn't want to follow him didn't look and died of their own choices.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

could I get a little help, please. I can see vaguly a reasonable simularity to that image being an Icon, but something just doesn't click as far as it being so, according to my undersatanding of an Icon.
That image was a way of many to be healed from a judgement that God had already set down for the disobediance of the Israelites. He had put the firy snakes there and those who wished to follow God need only look upon the image to be saved. Those who didn't want to follow him didn't look and died of their own choices.

Click to expand...

Exactly like the cross!