I am pretty sure there are reasons against making imagery that shows them as dynamic for the very reason that they tend to invoke emotion.
Speaking on imagery as "dynamic" (As noted before) doesn't address where they already showed the Lord as being dynamic when it came to imagery - from him standing on top of demons to having halos on his head, things that were NOT present in times before icons of Christ came into existence as we see them today.
Haven't seen any saints saying one can't show Christ conquering Demons in victory of the Cross - at all - but plenty who had no issue seeing him victorious over Satan/false gods (as noted)...and the same with using imagery from culture.
The halo is from Greek: it is a ring of light that surrounds a person in art, also known as a nimbus, aureole, glory, or gloriole. They have been used in the iconography of many religions to indicate holy or sacred figures, and used in images of rulers or heroes. Not only Christian sacred art represents the halo, but other religions such as Hellenistic Greek, Roman, and Buddhist cultures.
Sacred persons may be depicted with a halo in the form of a golden, yellow or white circular glow around the head, or around the whole body, which is often called a mandorla. The halo is traditionally associated with Christianity and its beginning can be found long before Christ was born - Horus was the god of the sky... Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris and Hathor was a protective goddess. She was also the goddess of love and joy - and above the head is a sun discs that later were halo symbols.
Use of halos seems to have existed hand-in-hand with Egyptian sun and animal worship..as Egyptians halos, usually were depicted as a large Round "solar discs, which are different from our modern day conception of the halo.
But the Greek god of the Sun, Helios, is depicted with a halo around his head.
Again, Greek culture has halos as well, but is nowhere near as abundant as they were with the Egyptians.
I am pretty sure there are reasons against making imagery that shows them as dynamic for the very reason that they tend to invoke emotion.
Emotion does not always remain seperate from imagery.
We already have this with halos - the equivalent of showing power in others. And Christian artists believed that the halo was symbolic of the light of grace bestowed by God....evoking feelings of awe and majesty. It is because of this that Christians had NO problem using an image from their surrounding culture.
For more review, one can investigate
Halos in Western Art: Horus to Jesus Christ to the X-Men - Lope
The halo itself as well as other images invoke emotion by nature - one can never get past that when it comes to the very imagery it presents. Of course, Icons are not created to force an emotional response
. When portraying historical scenes the faces didn't show emotions but instead portray virtues such as purity, patience in suffering or victory. - it was never emotion for its own sake. But emotions involved in response can never be escaped from Christian imagery.
unless you can show any support from Church history that supports that kind of imagery, then it is not appropriate. if you can show any saint that said it is okay, I am all eyes to read them. if not, yes I can. e never depict Christ in agony on the Cross. and I am pretty sure the iconographers on here would agree with me.
No one said anything about Christ in agony on the Cross - what WAS addressed was the fact of Christ in physical domination of his spiritual enemies (such as demonic forces) and the reality of his triumph after His death on the Cross ...consistent with the Apostle's message. Unless you can show from Church history and the words of the Apostles where Christ was not allowed to be portrayed as being victorious over his enemies after His death or that he was never physical, there is no basis talking on what is or
isn't appropriate on your preference.
you are the one putting up modernist images of Christ coming off the Cross (which is what the Pharisees and the other thief wanted Him to do), to kick some pagan tail. so the burden of proof is on you to show why that is correct for that medium.
Incorrect - seeing that Christ was NOT shown coming off the cross in the Image. Claiming otherwise goes against the image in what it said.
He already died and it showed Christ in the Spiritual realm making spectacle of all false gods/ powers...1 Peter 3:18-19 on how Christ (although dead on the cross) triumphed and proceeded to descend to come off the cross spiritually/descend to Hell to proclaim His triumph over its inhabitants so that their condemnation was final.
You already avoided where Christ was described as being victorious after His DEATH on the Cross, addressing the powers of Hell during his time before the Resurrection. And Only you are bringing the claim that Christ came off the cross prior to His death - ...and thus, it is your own claim. Christ never came down after his enemies taunted him while he was dying on the Cross - but it is never says at ANY point he didn't address spiritual powers after saying "It is finished"/giving his Spirit to the Father and doing as Holy Scripture notes with making a spectacle of the powers of darkness (Colossians 2:15 )
One cannot speak of "kick pagan tail" and avoid where Christ was already noted to have destroyed the power of the Devil. One cannot speak of 'kick pagan tail" and avoid St. Paul in his admonition in I Corinthians 15 with all powers being physically subjected to Christ and under his feet - as it was others not realizing the power of God that claimed Christ never physically addressed his enemies.
If you have an issue, that's your issue. But the burden of proof is actually upon you - to deal with scripture at each/every point where Christ is described as being in physical triumph over his enemies and where he already made a spectacle of him.
He goes all Super Sayian for the Transfiguration and the book of Revelation, with the elevated blonde hair, lightning bolts, and making small rocks float off the ground.
you could even have Him nail Shiva with the Hadoken while you are at it. all in the name of "art." this is one of the reasons I love Orthodoxy, this childish stuff stays away.
Of course, by that logic, one has no basis dealing with or reading scripture when it spoke in imagery relevant to the times ....showing Christ as having eyes full of flames of fire, having a rob dipped in blood (As other cultures showed their deities with the blood of their enemies), having swords coming out of His mouth....or having feet like bronze/golden complexion as many of the gods did in Greek/Roman culture.
And that's just Revelation 20 when He returns - there's also the imagery of CHrist being in Greek culture depicted with halos as other cultures already did when showing the power of their gods. Talking on making rocks float off the ground is small compared to how much more intensive scripture portrays the Lord..where it already notes how " His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light" (Matthew 17:1-3 ) or that " his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning (Luke 9:28-30). First century readers knew exactly how intensive it was to describe the Lord as such and that it was powerful
This is one of the reasons why Orthodoxy is beautiful when it comes to seeking to capture (as they did in the cultural context they lived in) the power and majesty of Christ in such matters - there was a reality of understanding no one could ever fully capture the fullness of who Christ was....and yet on the same token, they did what they did in manners that spoke to others in the times they lived.
It was not based on entertainment for its own sake - nor did it become entertainment because some thought it wasn't cool while others resonated with it.
There were already others noting that any attempt to portray Christ in iconic imagery was childish and not to be done - but it was done based on how it connected, even as boundaries were made. We cannot condone one era in what they did and they go backwards when other eras do the same.
But at the end of the day, everyone's different in that regards - and truthfully, if one has a problem with Christ or the Divine portrayed in comics in any manner (or claiming it has to be done right), they need to stop supporting D.C and Marvel comics altogether since that is common to the genre.
One should definetly NOT speak of loving D.C in the Justice League since (as noted earlier in discussion with paganism) they already spoke on the Divine/Heavenlies and PORTRAYALS of God Himself when it came to many of their story lines......Zauriel the angel being one example as well as others:
As noted before:
There needs to be a superhero that's overtly Orthodox.
Maybe like Angel from X-Men, but instead of being a mutant, he's an actual angel.
Gxg (G²);60173637 said:
Personally, although I think it'd be nice to see an overtly Orthodox hero, I'm not certain as to whether having him be a literal angel would go with the storyline/themes of having mutants that are representative of differing religions.
They did try to have angels as Superheros before, however. His name was
Zauriel, sent from heaven to fight for the D.C universe with the Justice League. More specifically,
Zauriel is an
angel of
Heaven's
Eagle Host, serving the divine
Presence. Having fallen in love with a human woman, he chose to fall to Earth and become a super-hero when the world was threatened by the demon known as
Asmodel. He has been a member of the
Justice League of America and
Shadowpact...with his creation being out of necessity as a replacement for
Hawkman during a time when he could not be used for publication reasons. There were elements to his comic series that seemed to invoke symbolism used in Orthodoxy--but nowhere was it said he was Orthodox.
For more:
Gxg (G²);60200651 said:
Concerning the above pictures,
as said best here by those examining the religion Clarke Kent follows:
Although he comes from a Protestant background, Superman is apparently flexible in his Christianity.
, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
