Icons...

[JesusFreak78]

Overview

Sure!! Christ is not only human but also Divine. He is the man of "sorrows" too who undertakes every man's calamities. So in a sense he is an African as much as He is an Asian or a Japanese. He undertook our "bodies" and became all things to all.


Isaiah 53:3
1Cor 9:22
To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
You make a dichotomy here Christ is for all!!!

Race did not matter as well as color of skin etc. for there is no Jew or Greek etc. So yeah we accept the icon of Christ as a man and God. Actually these icons are beautiful. So the Jews he was a Jew and to the Greeks a Greek why not an Ethiopian to the Ethiopians?

After all historically Christ was a Jew further more what makes you think he was "light"? He was a semite; a Jew of course he was dark.

So what you're saying is we are all free to picture Christ in our mind as we see fit?

Sounds like a heresy to me.

 

[Philothei]

In other words if Christ was a Jew then by right he ONLY saves the Jews? If He cannot be depicted as a human in all shades of color is this a.... heresy? Dogmaticaly speaking it is a historical maybe inaccuracy but pastorally or dogmatically it carries not value as Christ took on human nature and became man to save mankind ANY mankind so in truth yeah he undertook ALL human races to save them NOT only the semitic people. So yeah dogmatically they are correct to depict him in all shades of color.

 

[Philothei]

Philothei,

So I am curious when you place an eye upon the icon of Christ do you walk away with a radiantly beaming face? a reflection of the glory of God?
If not it would seem that the artictic rendition would fall well short of the Colossian 1 description others have put forth on this thread.

You are taking the "glory of God " in the burning bush narrative not in the broader sense... Yeah I said FOR the glory of God. But anyhow the glory of God is in everything that we do and we acknoledge HIS presence. That is the broader sense. Before I have lunch I glorify God ...is my face illumined like Moses at the burning bush? Nah.. But still there is glorification in my action since I do evoke the Holy of Holies before I eat right?
In that sense the icon is glorifying God.

 

[JesusFreak78]

In other words if Christ was a Jew then by right he ONLY saves the Jews? If He cannot be depicted as a human in all shades of color is this a.... heresy? Dogmaticaly speaking it is a historical maybe inaccuracy but pastorally or dogmatically it carries not value as Christ took on human nature and became man to save mankind ANY mankind so in truth yeah he undertook ALL human races to save them NOT only the semitic people. So yeah dogmatically they are correct to depict him in all shades of color.

Christ was only sent to the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24), but believers are grafted into the tree (Romans 11:17).

 

[Philothei]

Christ was only sent to the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24), but believers are grafted into the tree (Romans 11:17).

This is off topic but you are double talking if he cam for all believers whoa re grafted then Ethiopians are excluded? Hardly makes any sense when St. Paul says there are no Jews or Greeks etc.

 

[Philothei]

So what you're saying is we are all free to picture Christ in our mind as we see fit?

Sounds like a heresy to me.

How can it be a heresy? God was incarnated... Do you know exactly how he looked like? If not how is it a heressy? What would it effect ? Your salvation is not depended on His looks or how He looked like but the fact he was human and God. If they do not deny his divinity and humanity how it is heresy? Where Christ says unless you believe that I looked like an blue eyed and blond hair man then you are not saved....

 

[I die daily]

You are taking the "glory of God " in the burning bush narrative not in the broader sense... Yeah I said FOR the glory of God. But anyhow the glory of God is in everything that we do and we acknoledge HIS presence. That is the broader sense. Before I have lunch I glorify God ...is my face illumined like Moses at the burning bush? Nah.. But still there is glorification in my action since I do evoke the Holy of Holies before I eat right?
In that sense the icon is glorifying God.

Philothei,
Hebrews 1:1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, 2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. 3 The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.


Rev 22:5b and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

How shall we attempt to present the Holy one of God by our own creations?

 

[Kristos]

It seems like there are people jumping into this without much background. Anyone who want to have any type productive discussion on the matter of icons should first study the decrees of the 7th Ecumenical council: Internet History Sourcebooks Project

This is the resolution of the issues based on scripture and was accepted universally by the Church. Unless you have NEW information that was not considered by this council, there is really no point to reopening the controversy. It was resolved over 1000 years ago. There is no information, so there is no new controversy.

 

[JesusFreak78]

This is off topic but you are double talking if he cam for all believers whoa re grafted then Ethiopians are excluded? Hardly makes any sense when St. Paul says there are no Jews or Greeks etc.

Why would the Ethiopians be excluded? I never said they were excluded.

 

[JesusFreak78]

How can it be a heresy? God was incarnated... Do you know exactly how he looked like? If not how is it a heressy? What would it effect ? Your salvation is not depended on His looks or how He looked like but the fact he was human and God. If they do not deny his divinity and humanity how it is heresy? Where Christ says unless you believe that I looked like an blue eyed and blond hair man then you are not saved....

First, I don't like a blue eyed, blond hair Jesus since as a Jew, Jesus didn't have blue eyes and blond hair.

I don't know how Jesus looked like except from what Isaiah 53:2 describes of Him and even that isn't enough to make an image of Him.

If you can't make an image that represent Christ's divinity or physical appearance correctly, you are representing Jesus wrong and by doing so I will say you you're making a god in your own image.

 

[I die daily]

It seems like there are people jumping into this without much background. Anyone who want to have any type productive discussion on the matter of icons should first study the decrees of the 7th Ecumenical council: Internet History Sourcebooks Project

This is the resolution of the issues based on scripture and was accepted universally by the Church. Unless you have NEW information that was not considered by this council, there is really no point to reopening the controversy. It was resolved over 1000 years ago. There is no information, so there is no new controversy.

Kristos,

Thanks for the informative link, while the historocity of Christiandom should always be considered. I believe the position of most "Bible Christians" is the position that Catholicism and Orthodoxism take this way further than any freedom that can be argued from scripture. In scripture we see warnings against and yet Christ Himself the eikōn. I agree it's a blurred line but you must also agree that if it was not such an issue there would not have been the synods prior to 787 rejecting that type of image usage.

 

[Kristos]

Kristos,

Thanks for the informative link, while the historocity of Christiandom should always be considered. I believe the position of most "Bible Christians" is the position that Catholicism and Orthodoxism take this way further than any freedom that can be argued from scripture. In scripture we see warnings against and yet Christ Himself the eikōn. I agree it's a blurred line but you must also agree that if it was not such an issue there would not have been the synods prior to 787 rejecting that type of image usage.

I think that the arguments on both sides of the issue were taken from scripture, but in the end it was the gospel message that the Word of God became man and dwelt among us that won out. There were synods that rejected all sorts of things (the Diascorus Robber Council for example) - they were not accepted in the end. The truth of a council or synod is not made my man, therefore, man can and has held councils that were in error, but when a council is true according the Holy Spirit, then the sheep know the voice of the shepherd and it is accepted as such. Icons were accepted by the sheep and the decrees of the 7th Ecumenical council were essentially spiritually ratified by the Body of Christ. What does it mean to reopen an ancient controversy? What are the implication and how does that align with scripture?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

So is the point to show Jesus in your own image?

The point is that God became a man, entering into history and culture. I'm sympathetic to your point that God entered, via the assumption of humanity into the Second Person, into a particular history and culture (the Jewish history and culture through which he'd been working out the redemption of the cosmos for the better part of two thousand years). But there is also something universal about Christ taking on the nature of humanity, which we all share. So icons depict that that universal identity of God-coming-to-humanity in our guise. It's the same way in which the gospels concentrate on the historical particulars, and Paul on the theological level. Traditional Orthodox icons concentrate on theological reality of the incarnation and communicate it on a visual level.

 

[I die daily]

I think that the arguments on both sides of the issue were taken from scripture, but in the end it was the gospel message that the Word of God became man and dwelt among us that won out. There were synods that rejected all sorts of things (the Diascorus Robber Council for example) - they were not accepted in the end. The truth of a council or synod is not made my man, therefore, man can and has held councils that were in error, but when a council is true according the Holy Spirit, then the sheep know the voice of the shepherd and it is accepted as such. Icons were accepted by the sheep and the decrees of the 7th Ecumenical council were essentially spiritually ratified by the Body of Christ. What does it mean to reopen an ancient controversy? What are the implication and how does that align with scripture?

Kristos,
Scripture repeatedly reinforces a simple formula, the more the symbols, the less the spiritual reality. You see this in Matthew 23:25 and John 4:21-22

 

[I die daily]

GratiaCorpusChristi

So icons depict that that universal identity of God-coming-to-humanity in our guise. It's the same way in which the gospels concentrate on the historical particulars, and Paul on the theological level. Traditional Orthodox icons concentrate on theological reality of the incarnation and communicate it on a visual level.

GratiaCorpusChristi,

But that does not accurately represent what it's namesake which the Ortodox use to defend their stance, means.

Eikon means a precise copy, a reproduction or an exact image. So the portrait of Christ the eikonian of God means He is the exact reproduction of God, therefore so should the portrait be an exact replication of Jesus, thee eikon.​

 

[simonthezealot]

GratiaCorpusChristi


GratiaCorpusChristi,

But that does not accurately represent what it's namesake which the Ortodox use to defend their stance, means.

Eikon means a precise copy, a reproduction or an exact image. So the portrait of Christ the eikonian of God means He is the exact reproduction of God, therefore so should the portrait be an exact replication of Jesus, thee eikon.​

Exactly, and how could this ever be attempted considering for example the Col 1 description of the pre-Eminence of Chris

 

[Dorothea]

GratiaCorpusChristi


GratiaCorpusChristi,

But that does not accurately represent what it's namesake which the Ortodox use to defend their stance, means.

Eikon means a precise copy, a reproduction or an exact image. So the portrait of Christ the eikonian of God means He is the exact reproduction of God, therefore so should the portrait be an exact replication of Jesus, thee eikon.​

I don't think that's possible to write an exact duplication even if soneone saw him while He was on earth and also, what others have said icons are about. They are not supposed to be a portrait of a person.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

GratiaCorpusChristi,

But that does not accurately represent what it's namesake which the Ortodox use to defend their stance, means.

Eikon means a precise copy, a reproduction or an exact image. So the portrait of Christ the eikonian of God means He is the exact reproduction of God, therefore so should the portrait be an exact replication of Jesus, thee eikon.​

​

As, so that is your case. Please forgive me, as I did not take the time to read through the 50 prior pages of the thread.

But as to that case, I really can't agree. εικων does not mean an exact representation. The full definition in the standard lexicon of New Testament Greek, the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich or BDAG, includes the following meanings:

1. an object shaped to resemble the form or appearance of something, to be translated likeness, portrait

2. that which has the same form as something else (not a crafted object as in definition 1), living image

3. that which represents something else in terms of basic form and features, form, appearance

Your definition simply isn't true to the term as it was actually used in Hellenistic Greek (or any other period of Greek, from Attic to Demotiki, for that matter). It was used from everything from the profile portrait of the emperor's head on coins (cf. Mt 22:20) to sense in which we bear the image of Adam (cf. Enoch 106:16), and everything in between. And these are just the non-metaphorical usages.

So your etymological argument (which, even if accurate, is never a valid argument) is invalid. Sorry.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't think that's possible to write an exact duplication even if soneone saw him while He was on earth and also, what others have said icons are about. They are not supposed to be a portrait of a person.

Ya, that's another point. Photographs aren't exact representations. Moreover, would anyone contend that the hyper-realism of a photographer is greater art than the impressionistic landscapes of Monet?

 

[simonthezealot]

I don't think that's possible to write an exact duplication even if soneone saw him while He was on earth and also, what others have said icons are about. They are not supposed to be a portrait of a person.

If you you can't represent what/who the true Christ is aren't you putting forth a false christ?