Pictures of Jesus.

Wgw · Oct 8, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Yeah, I don't get into the politics of it all. The Church knows, and if she discovers something she didn't know, corrects herself pretty well. But I'm not a big fan of crowds. I will probably never go to Lourdes or Fatima, and though I'm a big devotee to Our Lady of Guadalupe, I'll probably never visit that image either. But Medjugorje always seemed fishy to me.

I myself regard Our Lady of Guadalupe as one of those triumphs of iconography that have the effect of utterly destroying the argument made herein; it is difficult to argue icons are evil when one such icon to a large extent facilitated the destruction of most of the Aztec religion, which with its penchant for human sacrifice on a genocidal scale is one of the worst Ive seen.

DamianWarS · Oct 8, 2015

Wgw said:
It is entirely wrong to enroll St. Paul in a bid to support a Pietist conception of mission over doctrine. Your position actually strikes me as being worse than that of the iconoclasts in this thread, in that you propose to de-emphasize what the Orthodox regard as integral to the Gospel in order to convert Muslims, and you patronize us by implying that in other contexts you would (mis)use iconography and de-emphasize Scripture in order to get your message across. At which point I would have to ask, what message? What is the point of evangelism when one is willing to sell out on doctrine?

The early Church did not contextualize, but merely translated; the Orthodox continue to enjoy success in the mission field relying only on linguistic translation, without deviating from the essential cultural traditions associated with the fourth century church in terms of architecture, vesture, iconography, liturgy, et cetera.

I did not say to de-emphasize scripture I specifically highlighted the bible as a book where the words inside would continue to hold high value. An example would be to treat the physical book more causally, like the way I hold it or how worn the bible looks. Still respect it as the mission dictates but don't estrange the gospel to people because my message comes packaged in something people cannot relate too.

Paul tells us "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Contextualization is a contemporary term but regardless what language you want to use Paul is showing us how the gospel transcends culture and how we are free to put on a culture to show others God's glory and the gospel still can work. This is not merely "translation" this is putting on and becoming a culture that is valued so that those in the culture can see the glory of God. This is why we should do traditions that are extra-biblical. Not because they have been practised since the beginning because that in itself is void of meaning but so "that I might by all means save some".

I don't care if you value icons just make sure the gospel is spoken through whatever tradition you choose so that others are not estranged by the message but can see the glory of God because it speaks in terms they can embrace.

Wgw · Oct 8, 2015

DamianWarS said:
I did not say to de-emphasize scripture I specifically highlighted the bible as a book where the words inside would continue to hold high value. An example would be to treat the physical book more causally, like the way I hold it or how worn the bible looks. Still respect it as the mission dictates but don't estrange the gospel to people because my message comes packaged in something people cannot relate too.

Paul tells us "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Contextualization is a contemporary term but regardless what language you want to use Paul is showing us how the gospel transcends culture and how we are free to put on a culture to show others God's glory and the gospel still can work. This is not merely "translation" this is being a the culture that is valued so that those in the culture weak can see the glory of God. This is why we should do traditions that are extra-biblical. Not because they have been practised since the beginning because that in itself is void of meaning but so "that I might by all means save some".

I don't care if you value icons just make sure the gospel is spoken through whatever tradition you choose so that others are not estranged by the message but can see the glory of God because in speaks in terms they can embrace.

You cannot express the Gospel message without the use of icons. Icons are entirely integral expressions of the incarnation and theosis; the raison d'etre is not even the expression they provide; rather they are theologically justified as veneration.

Now onto the other point: St. Paul's remarks must be received in light of the fact that the Church did not even bother to translate until nearly 140 years after his martyrdom.

sculleywr · Oct 8, 2015

DamianWarS said:
I did not say to de-emphasize scripture I specifically highlighted the bible as a book where the words inside would continue to hold high value. An example would be to treat the physical book more causally, like the way I hold it or how worn the bible looks. Still respect it as the mission dictates but don't estrange the gospel to people because my message comes packaged in something people cannot relate too.

Paul tells us "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Contextualization is a contemporary term but regardless what language you want to use Paul is showing us how the gospel transcends culture and how we are free to put on a culture to show others God's glory and the gospel still can work. This is not merely "translation" this is putting on and becoming a culture that is valued so that those in the culture can see the glory of God. This is why we should do traditions that are extra-biblical. Not because they have been practised since the beginning because that in itself is void of meaning but so "that I might by all means save some".

I don't care if you value icons just make sure the gospel is spoken through whatever tradition you choose so that others are not estranged by the message but can see the glory of God because it speaks in terms they can embrace.

That's the exact reason that Icons HAVE been around since the beginning. That is one of the reasons they are seen as essential to the faith. The reasons they are essential could be summed up below:

1. God became man, and a man could be depicted in an image. Therefore, an image of Jesus Christ is, by extension, an image of God. To say that one couldn't make an image of God would be to deny either that men COULD be depicted in images or to deny that Christ is God.
2. Icons can be used to communicate the Faith in ways that words cannot. They can be used to educate the illiterate.

Standing Up · Oct 9, 2015

My suggestion is we agree with Paul who said,
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (Rom. 14:1).

Those who believe in pictures of Jesus say it somehow in some way supports the truth of the incarnation. Without the pictures, they would not be able to believe that Christ came in the flesh is what they are saying.

We who don't worship/adore pictures, thinking it transfers to the object itself, should accept those weak in the faith. And in turn hope they discern the Body of Christ, rejecting the polemics of centuries gone by.

bbbbbbb · Oct 9, 2015

Standing Up said:
My suggestion is we agree with Paul who said,
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (Rom. 14:1).

Those who believe in pictures of Jesus say it somehow in some way supports the truth of the incarnation. Without the pictures, they would not be able to believe that Christ came in the flesh is what they are saying.

We who don't worship/adore pictures, thinking it transfers to the object itself, should accept those weak in the faith. And in turn hope they discern the Body of Christ, rejecting the polemics of centuries gone by.

Well said.

Goatee · Oct 9, 2015

Pictures of Jesus, Mary, Crosses, Crucifixes represent the true faith not a pagan faith or idolatry from the OT times! We have Jesus! A real man / Divinity. He walked the earth!! As a man!!! Who is God!

We know what man looks like! A picture or statue of Jesus is based on man! Jesus / God knows this. He knows what we are looking at. He knows why we are kneeling at a statue or a cross. He knows who we believe in and Love. He knows that we ARE NOT WORSHIPING IDOLS. We worship God! Jesus. God made flesh!

bbbbbbb · Oct 9, 2015

antletems said:
Pictures of Jesus, Mary, Crosses, Crucifixes represent the true faith not a pagan faith or idolatry from the OT times! We have Jesus! A real man / Divinity. He walked the earth!! As a man!!! Who is God!

We know what man looks like! A picture or statue of Jesus is based on man! Jesus / God knows this. He knows what we are looking at. He knows why we are kneeling at a statue or a cross. He knows who we believe in and Love. He knows that we ARE NOT WORSHIPING IDOLS. We worship God! Jesus. God made flesh!

Okay, we know that Jesus Christ became a man. Thus, any depiction of a man will suffice to represent Jesus Christ to us as we don't have any photographic images of Him. How about this?

Goatee · Oct 9, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Okay, we know that Jesus Christ became a man. Thus, any depiction of a man will suffice to represent Jesus Christ to us as we don't have any photographic images of Him. How about this?

View attachment 164120

Thats a photo. I prefer a painting! lol

Root of Jesse · Oct 9, 2015

Standing Up said:
My suggestion is we agree with Paul who said,
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (Rom. 14:1).

Those who believe in pictures of Jesus say it somehow in some way supports the truth of the incarnation. Without the pictures, they would not be able to believe that Christ came in the flesh is what they are saying.

We who don't worship/adore pictures, thinking it transfers to the object itself, should accept those weak in the faith. And in turn hope they discern the Body of Christ, rejecting the polemics of centuries gone by.

Your statement about those who believe in pictures of Jesus is a mischaracterization. Nobody said they would not be able to believe that Christ came in the flesh-that's your mischaracterization. And we're not weak in faith, especially those of us on this board. Sure, there are many, many weak Catholics, but they could care less about pictures, icons, and statues. They only want to do the minimum.

Root of Jesse · Oct 9, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Well said.

Though mischaracterized.

Root of Jesse · Oct 9, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Okay, we know that Jesus Christ became a man. Thus, any depiction of a man will suffice to represent Jesus Christ to us as we don't have any photographic images of Him. How about this?

View attachment 164120

You do know that we are to see Jesus in all our brothers and sisters? Yeah, even Osama bin Laden. But, what you're talking about is different from what we're talking about.

bbbbbbb · Oct 9, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
You do know that we are to see Jesus in all our brothers and sisters? Yeah, even Osama bin Laden. But, what you're talking about is different from what we're talking about.

Perhaps not. I am not aware of anyone who has any clear idea concerning the physical appearance of Jesus Christ other than the prophetic description provided by Isaiah. I am aware of an enormous variety of depictions of Jesus Christ with such a range as to include virtually any depiction of a man. About the only thing they have in common is Jesus with a beard and long, flowing hair.

Standing Up · Oct 9, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Your statement about those who believe in pictures of Jesus is a mischaracterization. Nobody said they would not be able to believe that Christ came in the flesh-that's your mischaracterization. And we're not weak in faith, especially those of us on this board. Sure, there are many, many weak Catholics, but they could care less about pictures, icons, and statues. They only want to do the minimum.

That's the argument however. For example,

His [St. Theodore of Constantinople] chief point is that Iconoclasts are Christological heretics, since they deny an essential element of Christ's human nature, namely, that it can be represented graphically. This amounts to a denial of its reality and material quality, whereby Iconoclasts revive the old Monophysite heresy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm

IOW, pictures of Christ affirm what is otherwise a heresy (no Christ in the flesh). Thus, you must have pictures and probably statues (three dimensions), else you can't believe Immanuel. Pretty simple, disheartening perhaps, but simple. Blessed are those who haven't seen, yet believe.

Root of Jesse · Oct 9, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Perhaps not. I am not aware of anyone who has any clear idea concerning the physical appearance of Jesus Christ other than the prophetic description provided by Isaiah. I am aware of an enormous variety of depictions of Jesus Christ with such a range as to include virtually any depiction of a man. About the only thing they have in common is Jesus with a beard and long, flowing hair.

View attachment 164123

Of course, ignoring the two that Jesus left us Himself, which are the basis of all the icons that my brother wgw has been talking about. Sure, there's a lot that's wrong. But there's a lot of pictures of people that don't really look like the person.

sculleywr · Oct 9, 2015

Standing Up said:
My suggestion is we agree with Paul who said,
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (Rom. 14:1).

Those who believe in pictures of Jesus say it somehow in some way supports the truth of the incarnation. Without the pictures, they would not be able to believe that Christ came in the flesh is what they are saying.

We who don't worship/adore pictures, thinking it transfers to the object itself, should accept those weak in the faith. And in turn hope they discern the Body of Christ, rejecting the polemics of centuries gone by.

We. Do not. Worship. Pictures!

And it isn't about strength in the faith, either. It's about defending the Faith.

Premise 1: God became man
Premise 2: Man can be depicted in an image
Conclusion: God can be depicted in an image of the Man He became.

That IS discerning the Body of Christ. Your post, to be frank, was quite demeaning and offensive. You're essentially accusing every Christian prior to the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant adoption of Islamic Iconoclasm of being weak in the faith.

Root of Jesse · Oct 9, 2015

Standing Up said:
That's the argument however. For example,

His [St. Theodore of Constantinople] chief point is that Iconoclasts are Christological heretics, since they deny an essential element of Christ's human nature, namely, that it can be represented graphically. This amounts to a denial of its reality and material quality, whereby Iconoclasts revive the old Monophysite heresy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm

IOW, pictures of Christ affirm what is otherwise a heresy (no Christ in the flesh). Thus, you must have pictures and probably statues (three dimensions), else you can't believe Immanuel. Pretty simple, disheartening perhaps, but simple. Blessed are those who haven't seen, yet believe.

It's telling that you'd use an article about a heresy to try to prove yourself. The truth is that the icons and statues and the stained glass in Catholic and Orthodox Churches represent the saints in heaven worshiping God with us. They are representations. I know WGW can explain the theology of icons better than that, but that's it, in a nutshell. I don't need statues in a church in order to worship, but boy, when I walk in and see lots of them, I know where I am...where heaven meets earth.

sculleywr · Oct 9, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Perhaps not. I am not aware of anyone who has any clear idea concerning the physical appearance of Jesus Christ other than the prophetic description provided by Isaiah. I am aware of an enormous variety of depictions of Jesus Christ with such a range as to include virtually any depiction of a man. About the only thing they have in common is Jesus with a beard and long, flowing hair.

View attachment 164123

However, the point of an Icon is to show more than just the physical characteristics of Christ. They depict Him in very specific ways. They show Him on the Throne, holding the book of the Law in one hand to show He is the judge, while the other hand reaches out to bless, showing He is our Hope. They depict Him Welcoming Children, showing that we must become as little children to become one with Him.

Icons are more than just mere images. HOW we depict Him is just as important as THAT we depict Him. Depicting Him as the mugshot of a random convict sends the wrong message in more ways than I can count.

MarkRohfrietsch · Oct 9, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Perhaps not. I am not aware of anyone who has any clear idea concerning the physical appearance of Jesus Christ other than the prophetic description provided by Isaiah. I am aware of an enormous variety of depictions of Jesus Christ with such a range as to include virtually any depiction of a man. About the only thing they have in common is Jesus with a beard and long, flowing hair.

View attachment 164123

These are all pictures of Jesus Christ; we all know that; yet they are not the same... does that matter?

Nope. We see Jesus Christ in all of them.

bbbbbbb · Oct 9, 2015

sculleywr said:
However, the point of an Icon is to show more than just the physical characteristics of Christ. They depict Him in very specific ways. They show Him on the Throne, holding the book of the Law in one hand to show He is the judge, while the other hand reaches out to bless, showing He is our Hope. They depict Him Welcoming Children, showing that we must become as little children to become one with Him.

Icons are more than just mere images. HOW we depict Him is just as important as THAT we depict Him. Depicting Him as the mugshot of a random convict sends the wrong message in more ways than I can count.

I wasn't discussing icons because, as you noted, there are many aspects to icons other than their pictorial qualities. I was discussing pictures of Jesus, which is the topic of this thread. If you would like to discuss icons - of Jesus or others - please feel free to start another thread.

Pictures of Jesus.

Pray For Brussels!

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Pray For Brussels!

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

On and on

Well-Known Member

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Well-Known Member

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

On and on

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads