Pictures of Jesus.

[Wgw]

Indeed. It is much safer to take the opinion of the first Seven Ecumenical Counsels; filled with enlightened and inspired theologians who have not been tainted by a thousand years of modernity over that of one or two self proclaimed experts on this particular topic.

Agreed, albeit with the partial exception of Chalcedon which is in part (the Tome of Leo and the anathema against Dioscorus) a sticking point for the Oriental Orthodox (on the other hand the anathema against Eutyches is entirely acceptable, the controversy rather of course surrounds St. Cyril's mia physis formula which we continue to employ, but fortunately this controversy is receding). I am not really an enthusiast of any Roman Pope named Leo (actually Leo I was the first to claim the pagan title Pontifex Maximus, which I rather wish he had not, as the word is inherently linked to the ancient Roman religion and its sacerdotal theology, unlike "Pope" or rather "Papem" which was since the second century the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, not to be adopted by Rome until long after Chalcedon).

Its very difficult to find in the ancient councils disagreeable participants. Of the 318 at Nicea, even Eusebius of Caesarea, who is not regarded as a Saint chiefly because of his equivocation as to whether or not to condemn Arianism, still comes across as being a gentler and wiser theologian than most of the contemporary angry voices.

Iconoclasm has always been an angry, intemperate theology, which reflects its Islamic origin.

 

[sculleywr]

That's rediculous. No one looks like the man Christ Jesus nor are we all icons of him. How is it that there are so many aspects of your faith that distract you from Jesus Christ? Icons, Mary, paintings, photos and sculptures. They all appear to the rest of the Body of Christ as diversions from the real thing. We have no idea what He looked like. And suppose a picture you choose to represent Him is seen by someone who was tramatized by a person who was hurt either physically or emotionally by one that your picture strongly resembles?
The most preposterous view held by those of your faith is that we are heritics for not having icons, that in so doing we are telling the world that we do not believe He came in the flesh.

You claim that your denomination is the oldest...that all believers sprang from and protestants rebelled against it. Isn't it just as likely that there were far more believers than is supposed by that statement and they were around but you did not recognize them, nor they you due to the many pagan identifiers you are dragging around with you and that they simply saw you as pagans?

Scripture said we are all made in the Image (Eikona) of God. I choose to believe it. You adding your objections doesn't make the claim less biblical. It's just an excuse to not accept the doctrine in the Scripture and in the early Church. We are made in the Eikona of God. That is Scripture. As to the incorrect statement that we call you heretics, you are mistaken. A person cannot be a heretic without having been a Baptized, Chrismated, Confessed and Communed member of the Orthodox Church. One cannot be a heretic unless he has tasted of the Truth and made a conscious decision to reject the Truth. My sources for that are the following:

Father Andrew Stephen Damick (Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy)
Father Thomas Hopko (Worship in Spirit and Truth; and Speaking the Truth in Love)
Deacon Michael Hyatt (At the Intersection of East and West)

As to the off0-topic second paragraph, you can't find them in history. However, that is not on topic. The existence of Icons in the Early Church is self-evident. Churches and synagogues from the first three centuries show massive amounts of evidence of Iconography and Icons on the walls. Much of it, of course, was destroyed by the Muslims, but there is plenty enough proof of their existence.

 

[Wgw]

Scripture said we are all made in the Image (Eikona) of God. I choose to believe it. You adding your objections doesn't make the claim less biblical. It's just an excuse to not accept the doctrine in the Scripture and in the early Church. We are made in the Eikona of God. That is Scripture. As to the incorrect statement that we call you heretics, you are mistaken. A person cannot be a heretic without having been a Baptized, Chrismated, Confessed and Communed member of the Orthodox Church. One cannot be a heretic unless he has tasted of the Truth and made a conscious decision to reject the Truth. My sources for that are the following:

I have not read Fr. Damick make such a claim regarding heretics; in any event if he did, I fear he was in error: the Synod of Dositheus convened by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem on the occasion of the consecration of the Church of the Nativity anathematized John Calvin as a heretic, and Calvin was never Orthodox. For that matter, Ss. Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Epiphanius of Salamis and others in their heresiological treatises class as heretics members of a range of sects from Gnostics and Ebionites to Arians as heretics; in many cases the members of these sects were never Orthodox to begin with.

The word heresy comes from a Greek word which roughly speaking means "philosophical school"; one could argue that any member of an anthematized heresy or a sect enumerated as a heresy in Holy Tradition (for example, a Marcionite) is a heretic. Albeit their heresy is not on a par with someone who attempts to promote Gnosticism for example within the Orthodox Church. So one can regard Calvinists as heretics for example on the basis of the Synod of Dositheus, and also on the grounds of being iconoclasts, monergists and arguably, Nestorians.

 

[Wgw]

Actually the encyclical sent by the Synod to all Orthodox bishops referred to Calvin as a "heresiarch" which is rather more extreme.

Moving back to the subject of iconography, while still considering the subtopic of anathemas, let us consider the following statement from Nicea II:

"The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols."

Note that in this context, Catholic Church should be understood as referring to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in that they were present at this council; it can also be extended to the Oriental Orthodox and Lutherans for example who agree with it. In addition, image can be understood as meaning icon; a question has been raised in Orthodox circles as to whether or not this council intended to authorize the three dimensional statuary associated with Roman Catholicism; interestingly Orthodox crucifixes are often two dimensional.

From these anathemas, we can deduce that:

- The fathers at Nicea II rejected entirely the idea that icons were idols.
- The council credited Christ with deliverance of humanity from the bondage of idolatry.
- Idolatry was thus condemned in the strongest possible way.

These anathemas do have the effect of making heretics out of any who should happen to disagree with them.

 

[Standing Up]

Actually no, Roman Catholics separated from the Orthodox, and Protestants in turn separated from the Roman Catholics for reasons which were not unjustifiable (after the experience of the inquisition, the Borgias and Pope Julius II, followed by Leo X's indulgence hawking, I would have left I expect). The main problem is that the early Protestants (Luther, Calvin, Knox, and especially Cranmer) were vile human beings, generally lacking in theological erudition as well as personal holiness.

Watch those stones while you're having fun.

"The world’s other major Christian leader who holds the same title, Pope Tawadros II of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, is also facing stiff blowback related to a divorce debate. Unlike Francis, however, some members of his own flock don’t just want him to change course, but they actually want him fired.

“He’s one of the worst spiritual leaders we’ve had in recent times,” said Wael Eskander, a well-known commentator on Coptic affairs, applauding recent calls from Coptic activists for Tawadros to be removed and sent packing to the monastery where he lived prior to being named a bishop."
http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2015/06/29/francis-is-not-the-only-pope-facing-a-divorce-dilemma/

 

[Standing Up]

These anathemas do have the effect of making heretics out of any who should happen to disagree with them.

And vice-versa.

 

[Wgw]

Watch those stones while you're having fun.

"The world’s other major Christian leader who holds the same title, Pope Tawadros II of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, is also facing stiff blowback related to a divorce debate. Unlike Francis, however, some members of his own flock don’t just want him to change course, but they actually want him fired.

“He’s one of the worst spiritual leaders we’ve had in recent times,” said Wael Eskander, a well-known commentator on Coptic affairs, applauding recent calls from Coptic activists for Tawadros to be removed and sent packing to the monastery where he lived prior to being named a bishop."
http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2015/06/29/francis-is-not-the-only-pope-facing-a-divorce-dilemma/

Pope Tawadros II is not my Patriarch (Ignatius Aphrem II Karim of Antioch), although I know many Copts personally and have yet to meet one who dislikes the current Pope. In any event, Pope Tawadros can be removed by the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, as he does not posess the kindof ecclesiastical dominance associated with the Pope of Rome; in fact he cannot even enter into the dioceses of other Coptic bishops without their consent.

He exercises no authority over the Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian and Eritrean members of the Oriental Orthodox communion, which have their own hierarchies independent of that of the Coptic church.

In like manner, Eastern Orthodox primates enjoy autonomy within their respective churches, as do individual bishops as a rule; the difference is that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople exercises certain juridical powers as a final court of appeal under Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, although it is improbable that all of the other autocephalous churches would abide by such a decision; in particular I doubt that if the Moscow Patriarchate deposed a priest, who then successfully appealed to Constantinople, that Moscow would give him his job back. Also, the Ecumenical Patriarch himself can be deposed; this happened to Nestorius, for example, who was deposed by St. Cyril, the Pope of Alexandria.

 

[pshun2404]

So you think the Commandment to not make an image of anything up in Heaven has changed? Granted, I believe the Law has changed; But I do not believe this applies to the moral laws, though. Besides, in the New Testament, we are told to keep ourselves from idols.


....

He was not referring to an image of something in heaven, but on earth (the man Jesus)...though imo we have no idea what He looked like (a middle eastern Jew, a former carpenter, who spent most time outside, would hardly look like an emaciated modern European)....

 

[Wgw]

He was not referring to an image of something in heaven, but on earth (the man Jesus)...though imo we have no idea what He looked like (a middle eastern Jew, a former carpenter, who spent most time outside, would hardly look like an emaciated modern European)....

Actually we do know what the Lord looked like thanks to the Image of Edessa, et cetea.

 

[KuriosIesousChristos]

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?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Nowhere does the Bible say we are to make images of Jesus or to trust in certain images of him as being actually him. On the contrary, we are told to not create an image of anything in Heaven. I would rather err on the side of caution then be foot-loose and fancy free in the way I worship GOD. For it is better to be safe then sorry.

Oy...

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exodus 20:4 (KJV)

It's not just a prohibition of things in heaven. It's things on Earth too. So I hope you don't have photographs of yourself, your family, your dog, your car, the tree outside your house or anything else. After all, those are all graven images. I'm sure you don't have any pictures of those things, of course, because if you did it would be wildly inconsistent with what you seem to think the Bible says.

 

[Wgw]

Oy...

It's not just a prohibition of things in heaven. It's things on Earth too. So I hope you don't have photographs of yourself, your family, your dog, your car, the tree outside your house or anything else. After all, those are all graven images. I'm sure you don't have any pictures of those things, of course, because if you did it would be wildly inconsistent with what you seem to think the Bible says.

There are some Muslims who actually do abhorr photography.

 

[prodromos]

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.​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oy...

It's not just a prohibition of things in heaven. It's things on Earth too. So I hope you don't have photographs of yourself, your family, your dog, your car, the tree outside your house or anything else. After all, those are all graven images. I'm sure you don't have any pictures of those things, of course, because if you did it would be wildly inconsistent with what you seem to think the Bible says.

As I said before, the Commandment was in reference to things created that would be a representation of God or other gods.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.​

Has this been tested with drawings of other people?

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He was not referring to an image of something in heaven, but on earth (the man Jesus)...though imo we have no idea what He looked like (a middle eastern Jew, a former carpenter, who spent most time outside, would hardly look like an emaciated modern European)....

Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.


...

 

[Wgw]

Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

...

Which does not have anything to do with the question of iconographic representation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.


...

Yes, and since his is true God and true man at the same time, through His Divine nature, He is Omnipresent.

Matt. 1:2, 3: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

 

[Wgw]

As I said before, the Commandment was in reference to things created that would be a representation of God or other gods.

...

That has to be taken in a pre-incarnational context; icons do not depict the divinity but rather the humanity of the Lord, which became incarnate and can thus be rendered visually.

 

[prodromos]

Has this been tested with drawings of other people?

He put in an icon of the crucifixion and the bees completely covered the thief on the left while leaving Jesus and the thief on the right uncovered.