Pictures of Jesus.

[sculleywr]

I believe all pictures of Jesus in existence today are fakes. Why? Because I believe one of the biggest things God desires from His creation is for us to walk by faith and not by sight.


...

You, unfortunately, are not the judge of their accuracy. An image of Christ is an image of Christ. Whether it is a perfect image of Christ is not a necessary question. We don't worship the image. Therefore it is not an idol and therefore it is not a violation of the commandment.

Besides, walk by faith and not by sight is not referring to images, but to request for miraculous intervention to prove His divinity. Do I really believe that Jesus looks like a white man with a black left eye and a normal right eye (one of the icons of Christ looks that way) and a nose that travels almost into his hairline? No.

Do I believe that God became man and therefore an image can be made of Him? Yes.

I have icons because to not have icons would be to reject the incarnation of God.

You do not determine what is an image of Christ. The intention of the iconographer determines that. The only part you have control of is whether you believe that Christ is God.

That is an image of Christ, whether you like it or not. You are not the judge of that. Scripture didn't say it wasn't an image of Christ. Scripture didn't say not to make an image of Christ. It said not to make IDOLS. They are not idols. The burden of proof is on you. You must prove that we replace God with the image.

But you can't because in both official Orthodox teaching and the Catholic catechism, people are instructed on the proper use of icons.

 

[Wgw]

First, truth should not be hidden. We should be discussing truth so as to help others. Second, I was not asking the difference of the veneration of man versus the worship of God. The topic of discussion here is one wrongfully worshiping Christ (God). I was asking if there was a difference between the veneration of God versus the worship of God. Personally I do not think there is a difference. In my view, the veneration of God would be an act or form of worshiping God, too. For if one bows before God so as to venerate Him, it is a form of worship. Anything we do for God so as to honor Him is a form of worshiping Him. For God deserves nothing less than our complete adoration and respect of Him as God.

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." (Colossians 3:17).


....

The truth is in no respects hidden. I am simply not going to waste time typing up for you a summary of what can be obtained through a simple Google search.

Now onto the second point, the fact that you are unable to perceive the real and meaningful difference between veneration and worship does not mean that such a distinction does not exist. One should venerate ones relatives, the clergy, the saints, and other respected figures, and this veneration in no respect amounts to polytheism.

When one venerates an image of God incarnate however in the context of worship, this veneration is distinguished from latria in that worship is not offered to the icon, which is a representation of the incarnation, or of other divine principles, but not a "manifestation" of them as the Hindus view their idols.

Iconographic theology is also incarnational theology; to reject images of the Lord is to deny the reality of the Incarnation, according to Orthodox theology.

 

[Grafted In]

I have icons because to not have icons would be to reject the incarnation of God.
you believe that Christ is God.

Please tell me you are kidding. That is so far out there......

 

[prodromos]

Please tell me you are kidding. That is so far out there......

Unfortunately it describes Islam in a nutshell. They reject the Incarnation and are 100% iconoclastic.

 

[Wgw]

Please tell me you are kidding. That is so far out there......

Scullywr is entirely correct - to reject icons is to reject the incarnation. This was the decision of the Council of Nicea, which came to be universally accepted by the year 900. Later the Assyrian Church of the East stopped using icons but not due to any iconoclasm except on the part of the Muslims; the Oriental Orthodox never even had a problem with iconoclasm, which was confined primarily to Constantinople and the areas under Byzantine control.

Iconoclasm was dead until Calvin with his usual faux-erudition decided to revive it, falsely claiming that it was the authentic position of the early church, when in fact we have vast amounts of archaeological evidence proving that he was in error. Iconoclasm was originally an Islamic theological concept and was introduced into the Byzantine Empire via that vector; a weak emperor hoped to avoid being annexed by removing iconography from the churches of Constantinople. He was aided by a clerical faction who instead of wearing pious vestments dressed in an 8th century version of our modern day prosperity gospel preachers; it was for this reason that a canon of Nicea II mandated the use of dignified clerical attire.

 

[Standing Up]

Unfortunately it describes Islam in a nutshell. They reject the Incarnation and are 100% iconoclastic.

Nah, it's from the folks who rejected a commandment that said "keep the Sabbath". Reject one and reject the other one that said "no graven images". And then really keep "honor your mother".

 

[Wgw]

Nah, it's from the folks who rejected a commandment that said "keep the Sabbath". Reject one and reject the other one that said "no graven images". And then really keep "honor your mother".

And here we have another argument that depends on the Great Apostasy, since the entirety of the Christian church replaced Saturday with Sunday as the principle holy day in honor of the resurrection and it was not until the Radical Reformation that some persons lacking theological erudition, who had apparently read the Bible as far as Exodus and no further, decided that the uniform practice of Christendom was in error and had been since the time of the Apostles themselves, who according to all historical evidence originated the date change. Nevermind the irrefutable fact that the Christian martyrs fed by ancient Rome to lions in the arenas celebrated Sunday as the principle Holy Day.

Not content though with having us embrace one deviation from the continual practice of the Christian church since the very beginning, these chaps also want us to deviate from anither, and embrace the iconoclastic theology derived from Islam, and the distorted antidicomarianism of Nestorius. In the entire history of Oriental Orthodoxy, since St. Peter began preaching in Antioch, there has been no official iconoclasm, and indeed the Eastern Orthodox were able to preserve icons in places like the Mar Sabbas monastery and St. Catherine's in Sinai, both in areas surrounded by icon-retaining Copts and Syriacs of the Oriental Orthodox communion.

 

[Standing Up]

And here we have another argument that depends on the Great Apostasy, since the entirety of the Christian church replaced Saturday with Sunday as the principle holy day

So, we agree. It's easy eh, to replace one then another and another ...

 

[sculleywr]

Please tell me you are kidding. That is so far out there......

That is the reason that Icons were in the Church in the first place. The primary reason that the Icons are in the Church is connected directly to the Incarnation. Read John of Damascus's treatise on the subject, entitled "In Defense of the Holy Images". The basic boiling down of the issue is found in the following two questions:

1. Is the image an image of Christ, either by accurate depiction, or by the prayerful intention of the Iconographer?

2. Is Christ God incarnate?

While the argument of physical accuracy is not in play for Orthodox Iconography (because just looking at the nose in Byzantine Iconography tells you that no human looked that way in any realistic fashion without having some sort of physical or genetic malady), there is the imminently more important question of INTENTION. Intention is what makes the difference between an Icon and an idol. The intention of the Icon is to be a visible representation of the Word of God, just as the intention of Scripture is to be a written representation of the Word of God. Only an Idolater would look at the Icon and say that the Icon itself is God. But a Christian looks and says that the Icon, in a limited fashion, represents some aspect of God, either through His interactions with the Saints, or in His actions through Christ and in the Church. They are snapshots of important doctrines put into a medium that even illiterate persons can understand and relate to. I would grant that there are cultural influences as regards the stylistic representations found in Icons, but the message is there.

A Bible can be an idol just as much as an Icon can be made into an idol. But the cause of the idolatry is not found in the Icon any more than the cause of a bibliolater's idolatry is the Bible. The blame is found in the heart of the idolater. Externalizing the sin into the Image ignores one very central problem. God created mankind as visual beings. He would not have done so and then told us that we could not worship Him through the visual medium of art. How cruel must God be to do so? It portrays God as the parent who sees his child making a low quality image of him and saying "no! you may not draw me!", then ripping the image up and throwing it away! How could I ever worship such a sadistic being? God created people with wonderful, amazing gifts for painting, drawing, sculpting, and embroidery. Why would He then tell them that they cannot worship Him through their gift?

 

[Wgw]

So, we agree. It's easy eh, to replace one then another and another ...

It is if you number among the Holy Apostles.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The truth is in no respects hidden. I am simply not going to waste time typing up for you a summary of what can be obtained through a simple Google search.

Now onto the second point, the fact that you are unable to perceive the real and meaningful difference between veneration and worship does not mean that such a distinction does not exist. One should venerate ones relatives, the clergy, the saints, and other respected figures, and this veneration in no respect amounts to polytheism.

When one venerates an image of God incarnate however in the context of worship, this veneration is distinguished from latria in that worship is not offered to the icon, which is a representation of the incarnation, or of other divine principles, but not a "manifestation" of them as the Hindus view their idols.

Iconographic theology is also incarnational theology; to reject images of the Lord is to deny the reality of the Incarnation, according to Orthodox theology.

Praying to the saints is wrong because they are not God to answer millions of prayers at once. Also, the Bible forbids us in contacting the dead.

...

 

[Wgw]

That is the reason that Icons were in the Church in the first place. The primary reason that the Icons are in the Church is connected directly to the Incarnation. Read John of Damascus's treatise on the subject, entitled "In Defense of the Holy Images". The basic boiling down of the issue is found in the following two questions:

1. Is the image an image of Christ, either by accurate depiction, or by the prayerful intention of the Iconographer?

2. Is Christ God incarnate?

While the argument of physical accuracy is not in play for Orthodox Iconography (because just looking at the nose in Byzantine Iconography tells you that no human looked that way in any realistic fashion without having some sort of physical or genetic malady), there is the imminently more important question of INTENTION. Intention is what makes the difference between an Icon and an idol. The intention of the Icon is to be a visible representation of the Word of God, just as the intention of Scripture is to be a written representation of the Word of God. Only an Idolater would look at the Icon and say that the Icon itself is God. But a Christian looks and says that the Icon, in a limited fashion, represents some aspect of God, either through His interactions with the Saints, or in His actions through Christ and in the Church. They are snapshots of important doctrines put into a medium that even illiterate persons can understand and relate to. I would grant that there are cultural influences as regards the stylistic representations found in Icons, but the message is there.

A Bible can be an idol just as much as an Icon can be made into an idol. But the cause of the idolatry is not found in the Icon any more than the cause of a bibliolater's idolatry is the Bible. The blame is found in the heart of the idolater. Externalizing the sin into the Image ignores one very central problem. God created mankind as visual beings. He would not have done so and then told us that we could not worship Him through the visual medium of art. How cruel must God be to do so? It portrays God as the parent who sees his child making a low quality image of him and saying "no! you may not draw me!", then ripping the image up and throwing it away! How could I ever worship such a sadistic being? God created people with wonderful, amazing gifts for painting, drawing, sculpting, and embroidery. Why would He then tell them that they cannot worship Him through their gift?

I think you raise a very important point Sculley by bringing up Bibliolatry...I have this nagging suspicion that some of our unorthodox interlocutors read John 1:1 to mean that the Bible (like the Quran in some interpretations of Islam) is unoriginate.

 

[Wgw]

Praying to the saints is wrong because they are not God to answer millions of prayers at once. Also, the Bible forbids us in contacting the dead.

...

Prayers offered through the intercession of the saints are not latria or worship directed to the saints. What is more, thenearly church, which had such intercessory prayer, also prohibited necromancy, so there is in fact no inconsistency; the saints are in fact not dead but are (in Orthodox Christianity) individuals whose presence in Heaven has been satisfactorily demonstrated and confirmed.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is the reason that Icons were in the Church in the first place. The primary reason that the Icons are in the Church is connected directly to the Incarnation. Read John of Damascus's treatise on the subject, entitled "In Defense of the Holy Images". The basic boiling down of the issue is found in the following two questions:

1. Is the image an image of Christ, either by accurate depiction, or by the prayerful intention of the Iconographer?

2. Is Christ God incarnate?

While the argument of physical accuracy is not in play for Orthodox Iconography (because just looking at the nose in Byzantine Iconography tells you that no human looked that way in any realistic fashion without having some sort of physical or genetic malady), there is the imminently more important question of INTENTION. Intention is what makes the difference between an Icon and an idol. The intention of the Icon is to be a visible representation of the Word of God, just as the intention of Scripture is to be a written representation of the Word of God. Only an Idolater would look at the Icon and say that the Icon itself is God. But a Christian looks and says that the Icon, in a limited fashion, represents some aspect of God, either through His interactions with the Saints, or in His actions through Christ and in the Church. They are snapshots of important doctrines put into a medium that even illiterate persons can understand and relate to. I would grant that there are cultural influences as regards the stylistic representations found in Icons, but the message is there.

A Bible can be an idol just as much as an Icon can be made into an idol. But the cause of the idolatry is not found in the Icon any more than the cause of a bibliolater's idolatry is the Bible. The blame is found in the heart of the idolater. Externalizing the sin into the Image ignores one very central problem. God created mankind as visual beings. He would not have done so and then told us that we could not worship Him through the visual medium of art. How cruel must God be to do so? It portrays God as the parent who sees his child making a low quality image of him and saying "no! you may not draw me!", then ripping the image up and throwing it away! How could I ever worship such a sadistic being? God created people with wonderful, amazing gifts for painting, drawing, sculpting, and embroidery. Why would He then tell them that they cannot worship Him through their gift?

The Bible mentions nothing in making an icon or idol image of God. Yes, the brass serpent was a symbol that represented Christ in the fact that He who knew no sin was made to be sin for us. But this was:

(a) Not a license for us to make our own symbols or pictures of God.

(b) Not a direct representation of God in what He looks like.

Besides, whether some people do not worship false images of Jesus, there are people that do so without even thinking about it. I believe promoting a false image of Christ can lead folks to falsely worship Him.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Prayers offered through the intercession of the saints are not latria or worship directed to the saints. What is more, thenearly church, which had such intercessory prayer, also prohibited necromancy, so there is in fact no inconsistency; the saints are in fact not dead but are (in Orthodox Christianity) individuals whose presence in Heaven has been satisfactorily demonstrated and confirmed.

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

...

 

[Wgw]

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

...

Indeed, which is why it is not insignifigant to consider that the saints are not dead. The Orthodox vigorously frown on necromancy because people who are dead, whose soteriological status is unknown, if people try to contact them with seances, will tend to be impersonated by demons, and we see a demonstration of that with the Witch of Endor episode in the Old Testament. Even in the case of confirmed saints the Orthodox are much more rigorous than the Roman Catholics in evaluating alleged miracles or communications involving them; many if not most Orthodox who have an opinion on, for example, Fatima, regard it as being entirely demonic.

 

[Wgw]

The Bible mentions nothing in making an icon or idol image of God. Yes, the brass serpent was a symbol that represented Christ in the fact that He knew no sin was made to be sin for us. But this was:

(a) Not a license for us to make our own symbols or pictures of God.

(b) Not a direct representation of God in what He looks like.

Besides, whether some people do not worship false images of Jesus, there are people that do so without even thinking about it. I believe promoting a false image of Christ can lead folks to falsely worship Him.

...

Fortunately the iconography of our Lord is based on traditions which date back to his lifetime and the image He Himself sent to King Agbar of Edessa, which is essentially why all Orthodox iconographic representations of the Lord look alike, differing only in terms of style.

It is obligatory to have icons of the person of Jesus Christ because to reject them is to deny the reality of the incarnation.

 

[sculleywr]

Praying to the saints is wrong because they are not God to answer millions of prayers at once. Also, the Bible forbids us in contacting the dead.

...

You pray to the saints every time you ask someone to pray for you. That is praying. So never ask another person to pray for you. Also, it forbids us from seeking the dead. But those who are in Christ are NOT dead. Unless you believe that there is death in Christ. Do you believe in the heresy that Christ did not defeat death? If not, then you can't say we are "contacting the dead". The actual prohibition was against the use of divination to conjure the dead.

 

[prodromos]

Praying to the saints is wrong because they are not God to answer millions of prayers at once.

Do you mean because that is something that only God can do?
Like raising the dead?
Or Walking on water?

Also, the Bible forbids us in contacting the dead.

It forbids necromancy, which is specifically contacting the dead in order to divine the future. That is not what we are doing when we seek the intercessions of the Saints, which has as its basis the building of love between all members of Christ's body. The reposed in Christ are just as much the body of Christ as we are.

 

[sculleywr]

The Bible mentions nothing in making an icon or idol image of God. Yes, the brass serpent was a symbol that represented Christ in the fact that He knew no sin was made to be sin for us. But this was:

(a) Not a license for us to make our own symbols or pictures of God.

(b) Not a direct representation of God in what He looks like.

Besides, whether some people do not worship false images of Jesus, there are people that do so without even thinking about it. I believe promoting a false image of Christ can lead folks to falsely worship Him.

...

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.

I 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.

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

Now, 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.

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.

Do 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.

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

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.