Are Icons Idols?

From : Second Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

• Seventh Session (October 13, 787 A.D.) – The council issued a declaration of faith concerning the veneration of holy images.
  
  Hagia Sophia of Nicaea, where the Council took place; Iznik, Turkey.
  
  Hagia Sophia, İznik
  It was determined that
  
  As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, Not, however, The Veritable Worship which, according to our faith, belongs To The Divine Being Alone – for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.

Anthony16 said:

Are Icons Idols? How can you can justify bowing down to something made of wood and paint? Something that is similar to what the pagans did? Isn’t this what books like the Torah, Wisdom of Solomon, Jeremiah, etc warn about? Is there any historical or Biblical justification for this practice? Here’s also a interesting video

of someone using the Church Fathers as support that Icons are Idols.

Click to expand...

the seventh ecumenical council felt with icons, to sum up the decision:

-It was permissible to make an Icon of Christ because he had a real human boby, and a real human soul. One of the attributes of being human is the ability to be portrayed, and depicted. But care needs to be taken so that the worship, or, veneration is directed to the person depicted, and not to the wood and paint.

This falls under religious art, the inside of the Jerusalem Temple was covered with art, cheribum, stood guard over the mercy seat, and don't forget the bronze snake that was lifted up in the desert.

Although the bronze snake did become an idol later near the end before Judah went into captivity.

Some will also say that Icons are written, and not painted art.

FireDragon76 said:

I consider the idea that Luke painted icons to be pious legends at best.

The early church had a variety of views about icons, and it seems religious images were adopted from the prevailing cultures practices. In Byzantium, it became a big deal, mostly driven by the laity- kissing, touching, etc. were all seen as pious. The west never really made it a big deal until the Reformation, mostly the religious images we had were much more low key in terms of devotion.

Click to expand...

The icon that I feature as my avatar here (upper left) is a copy of the famous icon written by the Holy Evangelist Luke. It's the miraculous myrrh streaming Iveron icon of Hawaii. If it were just a pious legend that Luke wrote the original, then I doubt that such copies would be streaming such sweet smelling myrrh from their surfaces. The fact that they do is evidence enough for me that the so-called pious legends are indeed true, and not just made up stories.