Icons...

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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

This is truly disingenuous. Surely one can make a distinction between skewing visual reality in artwork and faithfully representing truth. Indeed, as every artist who has ever made it into a gallery, and that includes photorealists, skewing the visual reality of a thing is essential faithfully representing the fuller truth of the subject.

 

[JesusFreak78]

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.

Maybe you can tell me how you represent someone accurately who was without sin when everyone else is with sin? Just because Jesus was born in a human body it doesn't mean He was like everyone else.

 

[JesusFreak78]

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.

Scripture doesn't try to tell us how the Word looks like (John 1:1), it tells us Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. The same thing in Colossians 2:9, scripture doesn't tell us how deity looks like, but it tells us the fullness of deity is in Jesus.

As soon as you try to make an icon out of that you are trying to represent something that isn't possible for us to put into an image and by doing so we make a god in our own image.

 

[Dorothea]

Maybe you can tell me how you represent someone accurately who was without sin when everyone else is with sin? Just because Jesus was born in a human body it doesn't mean He was like everyone else.

That sounds dangerously close to denying His Two Natures -100% human and 100% God, which would be Nestorianism, from the heretic, Nestorius, which was dealt with at the 4th Ecumenical Council:


The Fourth Ecumenical Council took place in Chalcedon in 451 AD, and is also known as the Council of Chalcedon. It ruled that Jesus Christ is "in two natures" in opposition to the doctrine of Monophysitism.

Concerning Christ's nature and personhood, the Council rejected Dioscorus' position, and proclaimed that:

...while Christ is a single, undivided person, He is not only from two natures but in two natures. The bishops acclaimed the Tome of St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome (died 461), in which the distinction between the two natures is clearly stated, although the unity of Christ's person is also emphasized. In their proclamation of faith they stated their belief in 'one and the same son, perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly human... acknowledged in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference between the natures is in no way removed because of the union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature is preserved, and both combine in one person and in one hypostasis.

This definition, where the distinction between Christ's two natures and the unity of His personhood are both emphasized, was aimed not only at the Monophysites, but also the followers of Nestorius.

Fourth Ecumenical Council - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Dorothea]

Scripture doesn't try to tell us how the Word looks like (John 1:1), it tells us Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. The same thing in Colossians 2:9, scripture doesn't tell us how deity looks like, but it tells us the fullness of deity is in Jesus.

As soon as you try to make an icon out of that you are trying to represent something that isn't possible for us to put into an image and by doing so we make a god in our own image.

John describes Him very much in Revelation, btw.

What we have is an icon or likeness of God incarnate, which is safer to focus on than one made up in our imaginations, which happens when people don't want to look at any pictures of Christ, which is close to denying the Incarnation. Explained in this commentary:

Before we close this essay, it seems worthwhile to take note of the dangers of excess which can lead us to idolatry, as icons can certainly be made into idols. In part, it may have been some of the abuses and perversions related to iconography in the Middle Ages that inspired Emperor Leo III the Isaurian to launch the Byzantine iconoclast controversy in the first place. For example, there are accounts which indicate that icons may have served as godparents at baptisms on multiple occassions.53

Such abuses and perversions are, as stated, idolatrous; their possibility does not, however, preclude the display and veneration of the Holy Icons altogether, as some iconoclasts would aver. On the contrary, iconoclasts are just as capable of falling into idolatry as are iconodules (that is, those who venerate the Holy Icons). In fact, it may be somewhat easier for an iconoclast to fall into idolatry as he is much more susceptible to the danger of making a false image of God, most likely created in his own image, whereas for the iconodule an image is already present. All the iconodule must do is make certain that he doesn't turn this image into an idol.

Of all the senses, sight is perhaps the most used by and more important to human beings. Images are natural to us. Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, wrote:

I am convinced that it is God's will that we should hear and learn what He has done, especially what Christ suffered. But when I hear these things and meditate upon them, I find it impossible not to picture them in my heart. Whether I want to or not, when I hear of Christ, a human form hanging upon a cross rises up in my heart: just as I see my natural face reflected when I look into water.8

This not only makes the iconoclast's position an inconsistent one, as he places a ban on external images but knows himself incapable of stopping the natural rising up of images in his mind, but also makes it more difficult for him to avoid idolatry. In the Orthodox Christian iconographic tradition, creativity and imagination are strongly discouraged; an iconographer's goal is essentially to copy previous images and, in the few cases in which news ones are needed, to stick as closely to traditional guidelines of color, symbolism, style, etc. as possible. Insofar as he departs from these standards, his quality as an iconographer decreases. In short, iconography is the art of imitation, not innovation.54 Iconoclasts, on the other hand, having no traditional image to which to look, are forced to create their own image fresh each time, allowing for the creation of a great variety of false images and the danger of worshiping a false god; this is idolatry.

Orthodox Apologetics: A Defense of the Holy Icons (Part VI - Dangers of Idolatry)

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Maybe you can tell me how you represent someone accurately who was without sin when everyone else is with sin? Just because Jesus was born in a human body it doesn't mean He was like everyone else.

Um... so? I don't see the problem. A photograph of Jesus wouldn't distinguish his sinlessness from anyone else. And as for icons, they're an abstract artform. Their abstraction, which goes beyond the visual and distorts the historical visual reality, is the only way one can visually communicate the theological truths we both hold so dear.

 

[JesusFreak78]

That sounds dangerously close to denying His Two Natures -100% human and 100% God, which would be Nestorianism, from the heretic, Nestorius, which was dealt with at the 4th Ecumenical Council:


The Fourth Ecumenical Council took place in Chalcedon in 451 AD, and is also known as the Council of Chalcedon. It ruled that Jesus Christ is "in two natures" in opposition to the doctrine of Monophysitism.

Concerning Christ's nature and personhood, the Council rejected Dioscorus' position, and proclaimed that:

...while Christ is a single, undivided person, He is not only from two natures but in two natures. The bishops acclaimed the Tome of St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome (died 461), in which the distinction between the two natures is clearly stated, although the unity of Christ's person is also emphasized. In their proclamation of faith they stated their belief in 'one and the same son, perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly human... acknowledged in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference between the natures is in no way removed because of the union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature is preserved, and both combine in one person and in one hypostasis.

This definition, where the distinction between Christ's two natures and the unity of His personhood are both emphasized, was aimed not only at the Monophysites, but also the followers of Nestorius.

Fourth Ecumenical Council - OrthodoxWiki

I agree with you, Jesus is having two natures, both man and God, but He is sinless and was sinless when He walked here on earth. This is not the case with everyone else who is a sinner.

 

[Dorothea]

I agree with you, Jesus is having two natures, both man and God, but He is sinless and was sinless when He walked here on earth. This is not the case with everyone else who is a sinner.

Sure, and I agree He is sinless. I don't know, though, what this has to do with icons written of Him incarnate.

 

[Kristos]

Maybe you can tell me how you represent someone accurately who was without sin when everyone else is with sin? Just because Jesus was born in a human body it doesn't mean He was like everyone else.

Very simply - he showed us. This is actually at the core of the defense of icons - the Incarnation and orthodox Christology. It is specifically against what you seem to be stating here that "Jesus was born in a human body". On the surface, this statement appears to be Apollinarian, or perhaps Nestorian depending on how describe this inhabitation. Icons affirm that Jesus Christ was person - fully man, and also fully God and further that He was like unto us in EVERY way. Yes, He was without sin, but sin is not part of our true nature, so He is called the second Adam. He came to redeem all things, and so He assumed all things, being like unto us in every way - just without the sin, the disobedience, the submission to passions and the following of own way.

Scripture doesn't need to tell us what He looked like because He dwelt among us. People saw Him with their own eyes just like they heard Him with their own ears. The Person, Jesus Christ. So Icon can be written concerning what was seen with the eyes, just as scripture could be written about what was heard with the ear. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then maybe it could be said that the icon says more than scripture. It certainly promotes a right Christology and therefore must be defended alongside the preceding six Ecumenical councils. Do you esteem the ear above eye for some reason? Do you despise the visual, the physical, the body? The blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk - we must walk the Way, and hear the Scripture with our ear, and also see with eyes the revelation of God that is the Incarnation.

 

[JesusFreak78]

John describes Him very much in Revelation, btw.

What we have is an icon or likeness of God incarnate, which is safer to focus on than one made up in our imaginations, which happens when people don't want to look at any pictures of Christ, which is close to denying the Incarnation. Explained in this commentary:

Before we close this essay, it seems worthwhile to take note of the dangers of excess which can lead us to idolatry, as icons can certainly be made into idols. In part, it may have been some of the abuses and perversions related to iconography in the Middle Ages that inspired Emperor Leo III the Isaurian to launch the Byzantine iconoclast controversy in the first place. For example, there are accounts which indicate that icons may have served as godparents at baptisms on multiple occassions.53

Such abuses and perversions are, as stated, idolatrous; their possibility does not, however, preclude the display and veneration of the Holy Icons altogether, as some iconoclasts would aver. On the contrary, iconoclasts are just as capable of falling into idolatry as are iconodules (that is, those who venerate the Holy Icons). In fact, it may be somewhat easier for an iconoclast to fall into idolatry as he is much more susceptible to the danger of making a false image of God, most likely created in his own image, whereas for the iconodule an image is already present. All the iconodule must do is make certain that he doesn't turn this image into an idol.

Of all the senses, sight is perhaps the most used by and more important to human beings. Images are natural to us. Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, wrote:

I am convinced that it is God's will that we should hear and learn what He has done, especially what Christ suffered. But when I hear these things and meditate upon them, I find it impossible not to picture them in my heart. Whether I want to or not, when I hear of Christ, a human form hanging upon a cross rises up in my heart: just as I see my natural face reflected when I look into water.8

This not only makes the iconoclast's position an inconsistent one, as he places a ban on external images but knows himself incapable of stopping the natural rising up of images in his mind, but also makes it more difficult for him to avoid idolatry. In the Orthodox Christian iconographic tradition, creativity and imagination are strongly discouraged; an iconographer's goal is essentially to copy previous images and, in the few cases in which news ones are needed, to stick as closely to traditional guidelines of color, symbolism, style, etc. as possible. Insofar as he departs from these standards, his quality as an iconographer decreases. In short, iconography is the art of imitation, not innovation.54 Iconoclasts, on the other hand, having no traditional image to which to look, are forced to create their own image fresh each time, allowing for the creation of a great variety of false images and the danger of worshiping a false god; this is idolatry.

Orthodox Apologetics: A Defense of the Holy Icons (Part VI - Dangers of Idolatry)

I have read Revelation several times and from Johns description and you get a mighty view who Jesus is, but I don't believe it's a view you can ever be able to accurately portray in an icon/image.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Sure, and I agree He is sinless. I don't know, though, what this has to do with icons written of Him incarnate.

It has something to do with being able to accurately portray who He is instead of portraying Him how He is in your mind.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Very simply - he showed us. This is actually at the core of the defense of icons - the Incarnation and orthodox Christology. It is specifically against what you seem to be stating here that "Jesus was born in a human body". On the surface, this statement appears to be Apollinarian, or perhaps Nestorian depending on how describe this inhabitation. Icons affirm that Jesus Christ was person - fully man, and also fully God and further that He was like unto us in EVERY way. Yes, He was without sin, but sin is not part of our true nature, so He is called the second Adam. He came to redeem all things, and so He assumed all things, being like unto us in every way - just without the sin, the disobedience, the submission to passions and the following of own way.

Scripture doesn't need to tell us what He looked like because He dwelt among us. People saw Him with their own eyes just like they heard Him with their own ears. The Person, Jesus Christ. So Icon can be written concerning what was seen with the eyes, just as scripture could be written about what was heard with the ear. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then maybe it could be said that the icon says more than scripture. It certainly promotes a right Christology and therefore must be defended alongside the preceding six Ecumenical councils. Do you esteem the ear above eye for some reason? Do you despise the visual, the physical, the body? The blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk - we must walk the Way, and hear the Scripture with our ear, and also see with eyes the revelation of God that is the Incarnation.

I know He dwelt among us, but I have yet to see an icon who shows Him as Isaiah 53:2 describes to us.

 

[Kristos]

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

The simple formula is more like be obedient to my commands. Regardless, I don't see how these versus bolster you iconoclast position in anyway. The focus here is on Icons, which have a very specific, traditional and theological style, intent and meaning. Symbols would have to be addressed separately, because it opens a plethora of topics, including the cross which is displayed prominently at the top of this page. You seem to be going down a road that separates the spiritual from the physical. You might want to reconsider this.

 

[Kristos]

I know He dwelt among us, but I have yet to see an icon who shows Him as Isaiah 53:2 describes to us.

Then come to an Orthodox Church on Holy Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday for Matins.

 

[Dorothea]

It has something to do with being able to accurately portray who He is instead of portraying Him how He is in your mind.

God is the the Lord and has revealed Himself to us.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Then come to an Orthodox Church on Holy Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday for Matins.

I have been in several EO churches and I didn't like what I saw.

 

[Thekla]

I have been in several EO churches and I didn't like what I saw.

When you make statements about God based on some verses in Scripture (but not all verses in Scripture), is this an accurate image of God that you make ?

 

[JesusFreak78]

When you make statements about God based on some verses in Scripture (but not all verses in Scripture), is this an accurate image of God that you make ?

I base my statements on all of the bible, not just some of it.

 

[Thekla]

I base my statements on all of the bible, not just some of it.

So God = Scripture ?

(Nor do I agree that your statements reflect all of Scripture, nor even the heart of Scripture.)

 

[simonthezealot]

So God = Scripture ?

Really? again?