Drawing god ?!

[Cappadocious]

Exactly. Christ is both God and Man.

Ah, but that's not the point I was getting at.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath exegeted him."

Christ is the icon of the Father. He is what the Father looks like. He is the Father's depiction.

 

[Nephi]

Christ is the icon of the Father. He is what the Father looks like. He is the Father's depiction.

+1

Thus is why I focus on an icon of Christ when praying to the Father. That said I do have a fond spot for "Old Man Trinity" icons - I just don't tend to venerate them.

 

[27B6]

...

 

[Gnarwhal]

This might help.

Ancient of Days - OrthodoxWiki

As for Michelangelo's depiction of God on the Sistine Chapel, do Roman Catholics believe it is showing God the Father, or Christ as the Ancient of Days?

The Ancient of Days in Iconography

In Orthodox Iconography, we find the image of the Ancient of Days used in two ways:

1. Often, Jesus Christ is depicted as an old man, to show symbolically that he existed from all eternity, and sometimes as a young man to portray him as he was incarnate. This iconography emerged in the 6th century, mostly in the Eastern Empire.[24]

2. The Father is also often symbolically depicted as the Ancient of Days. We find this on many miraculous icons, including the Kursk Root Icon[25], the Reigning Icon of the Mother of God (Derzhavnaya icon)[26], and the Sitka Icon[27], just to name a few.

The Council of Moscow in 1667 declared that the Ancient of Days was the Son and not the Father, and that the depiction of the Fathers as the Ancient of Days was forbidden.[28] This is however the same council that anathamatized the Old Rite, and like many of its decrees, this decree has generally been ignored ever since, and this image has been a regular element in Orthodox Iconography, both within Russia, and elsewhere in the Church. The above cited references to the standard "Painters Manual" of Dionysius of Fourna, as well the comments of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in "The Rudder" demonstrate that this was an accepted element of Orthodox Iconography. In the second half of the 20th Century, however, a movement to reject this element of Iconography arose from some of the representatives of the Neo-Patristic movement, and so this has become a matter of controversy in more recent times.

I was going to say, I could've sworn there was at least one icon that I had heard of that depicted the Father...

 

[Nephi]

I was going to say, I could've sworn there was at least one icon that I had heard of that depicted the Father...

There are a ton of icons that attempt to depict the Father - and not just Christ as Ancient of Days. The problem is whether it is proper to do so.

Take this Port Arthur icon for example, and notice the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father:

 

[buzuxi02]

This might help.

Ancient of Days - OrthodoxWiki

As for Michelangelo's depiction of God on the Sistine Chapel, do Roman Catholics believe it is showing God the Father, or Christ as the Ancient of Days?

The Ancient of Days in Iconography

In Orthodox Iconography, we find the image of the Ancient of Days used in two ways:


2. The Father is also often symbolically depicted as the Ancient of Days. We find this on many miraculous icons, including the Kursk Root Icon[25], the Reigning Icon of the Mother of God (Derzhavnaya icon)[26], and the Sitka Icon[27], just to name a few.

The above cited references to the standard "Painters Manual" of Dionysius of Fourna, as well the comments of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in "The Rudder" demonstrate that this was an accepted element of Orthodox Iconography. In the second half of the 20th Century, however, a movement to reject this element of Iconography arose from some of the representatives of the Neo-Patristic movement, and so this has become a matter of controversy in more recent times.

I have to take objections to the above statements found on wiki. Depictions of God the Father in Orthodoxy are recent (meaning in the past 500 years). St John of Damascus found circumscribing the uncreated Trinity as impossible and the 7th Ecumenical council commands what can be depicted specifically, Christ, the Theotokos, Saints, Angels, Martyrs and other holy men, but always omits the Father.

Uncanonical depictions certainly abound, one specific prominent depiction is found in the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St Sophia in Los Angelos. It depicts God the Father, with a sheep on the right and a dove. The depiction of Christ as a lamb was condemned in the canons of the 6th Ecumenical council.

The Kursk Icon in its original form only depicted the main panel. The smaller God the Father depiction on the top and the images found on the side panels were much later add-ons. In one instance Russian depictions of the Father were the product of misinterpreting the Ancient of Days icons found in Kastoria Greece. These greek icons depict Christ as the Ancient of Days with the infant Christ in his bosom. These icons depict the economy of God based on the Nativity hymns mentioning how the Ancient of Days became a child for our sakes. The russian iconographers copied these icons but mistook the white bearded man to be the Father instead of Christ and they became known throughout Russia as 'the Paternity' icon.

The St. Nikodemos quote (as I've written numerous times in other forums) is an interpolation. You can find virtually the same thing said as St Nikodemos but without the interpolation in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. The Synodikon is clear on what can be depicted without that annoying out of place forgery added onto the end.

 

[Trying_to_be_Orthodox]

just for information, more icons with drawings: Èêîíîãðàôèÿ: ñþæåòû è îáðàçû

 

[Gnarwhal]

There are a ton of icons that attempt to depict the Father - and not just Christ as Ancient of Days. The problem is whether it is proper to do so.

Take this Port Arthur icon for example, and notice the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father:

Yeah, I can understand the dilemma (if that's what it is) of portraying the Father in iconography. "God is unknowable in his essence..."

 

[Fotina]

+1

Thus is why I focus on an icon of Christ when praying to the Father. That said I do have a fond spot for "Old Man Trinity" icons - I just don't tend to venerate them.

Christ is the icon of the Father. He is what the Father looks like. He is the Father's depiction.

If you mean physical, I disagree. Only Christ is God and Man. 'No one has seen the Father, only the Son, who reveals the Father.'

 

[Nephi]

If you mean physical, I disagree. Only Christ is God and Man. 'No one has seen the Father, only the Son, who reveals the Father.'

Just as an icon is not the literal physical being. But, and I may be paraphrasing, "he who has seen me has seen the Father." So is Christ the literal Father walking around? No, but is he the icon through which we see and know the Father? Yes.

 

[WisdomTree]

Man Christianity can be confusing...

 

[Fotina]

Just as an icon is not the literal physical being. But, and I may be paraphrasing, "he who has seen me has seen the Father." So is Christ the literal Father walking around? No, but is he the icon through which we see and know the Father? Yes.

Christ as icon of the Father conveys different understanding from,

He is what the Father looks like. He is the Father's depiction.

 

[Cappadocious]

Christ as icon of the Father conveys different understanding from,

How so?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Just as an icon is not the literal physical being. But, and I may be paraphrasing, "he who has seen me has seen the Father." So is Christ the literal Father walking around? No, but is he the icon through which we see and know the Father? Yes.

someone, I think Archbishop Averky but could be wrong, said that this is the reason that in the Book of Revelation, when St John sees God enthroned, he goes into no detail about what He looks like, unlike when he describes his many visions of the Son of Man.

 

[Dewi Sant]

When an image depicts the Father, it is not an actual depiction of Him. Rather, the image is a representation in symbolic sense of the Father.
It is symbol but an abstract one.

The well known icon by the hand of Rublev on the Holy Trinity is abstract in that it depicts the Father but makes it obvious that this is by symbol and not a re-presentation of any revelation of any physical form of the Father to humanity.

It reminds me of something Saint Nikolai Velimirovic said: "Eyes cannot see Him, nor ears hear him, but sight can see Him and hearing can hear Him."

The senses of faith recognise much which the natural human senses can not.

(I wear the Anglican badge out of humility, not as a display of my theological convictions)

 

[Dewi Sant]

We can only depict God insofar as we depict the incarnation of Christ. Christ has real, physical, tangible flesh, and we can draw that. Trying to draw God in His eternal divine nature is blasphemous.

Blasphemous because it is impossible to depict the Father. (Essence and Energies...one may depict the effect of the wind but the wind itself cannot be seen nor depicted).
If one were to make a drawing and call it 'The Father', and people understand it as an actual image of The Father, that would be misleading and damaging to those peoples' faith. Thus blasphemy.
The Father wills for us our betterment, to grow in love for Him. As He is beyond our comprehension He seeks for us to grow in love without distractive thoughts.

Yes, depict Christ, but always with the greatest respect in thanksgiving for God's revelation of Himself in our Flesh.

 

[Cappadocious]

When an image depicts the Father, it is not an actual depiction of Him. Rather, the image is a representation in symbolic sense of the Father.

It is symbol but an abstract one.

And Christ is the Symbolon of God in the pre-nominalistic sense. He is not an abstract, disconnected reference to the Father. He, in his Person, delivers the Father. The means by which we encounter the Father.

That's the teaching of the Fathers and the Scriptures.

He seeks for us to grow in love without distractive thoughts.

Christ, his True Image, is not a distraction.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And Christ is the Symbolon of God in the pre-nominalistic sense. He is not an abstract, disconnected reference to the Father. He, in his Person, delivers the Father. The means by which we encounter the Father.

That's the teaching of the Fathers and the Scriptures.


Christ, his True Image, is not a distraction.

have I been with you so long Philip, and yet you have not known Me? he who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father"?