Against My Better Judgment...

[All Becomes New]

I think Nicea 2 is an accretion in the Chruch. The scholarship is unanimous that icon veneration did not exist before the sixth century.

What would I need to change my view on this? I have thought about it. What would get me to reconsider is I would need this:
1) It would have to be in the third century or before.
2) It would have to be from three ECF (who are considered orthodox Christians, not Gnostic sources).
3) It would have to be directly affirming Icon Veneration as described in Nicea 2. That would mean it would include bowing down to, kissing, or praying through the icon as a window into heaven.

I am NOT interested in the catacombs. I am NOT concerned with Christian art which may serve certain purposes other than Icon Veneration.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I think Nicea 2 is an accretion in the Chruch. The scholarship is unanimous that icon veneration did not exist before the sixth century.

What would I need to change my view on this? I have thought about it. What would get me to reconsider is I would need this:
1) It would have to be in the third century or before.
2) It would have to be from three ECF (who are considered orthodox Christians, not Gnostic sources).
3) It would have to be directly affirming Icon Veneration as described in Nicea 2. That would mean it would include bowing down to, kissing, or praying through the icon as a window into heaven.

I am NOT interested in the catacombs. I am NOT concerned with Christian art which may serve certain purposes other than Icon Veneration.

The shroud itself would be proof of all of it. I believe Irenaeus, writing in around 180 AD, wrote about the use of icons then. Remember though, Christianity was only legalized in the 300s so any icon use would likely have been in secret before then. It was likely a gradual process up through the 500s and then to the 800s...

 

[All Becomes New]

I believe Irenaeus, writing in around 180 AD, wrote about the use of icons then.

Please provide the quote so I can look it up.

It was likely a gradual process up through the 500s and then to the 800s...

That's exactly the problem with it. It does not go back to the Apostles as Nicea 2 says it does.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Please provide the quote so I can look it up.



That's exactly the problem with it. It does not go back to the Apostles as Nicea 2 says it does.

Not exactly but close. Supposedly St Luke wrote an Icon of Mary so there is that...the Shroud was actually the 1st Icon.

 

[All Becomes New]

Not exactly but close. Supposedly St Luke wrote an Icon of Mary so there is that...the Shroud was actually the 1st Icon.

We have zero evidence that either St. Luke's painting or the Shroud was venerated. It is a matter of debate whether the shroud is legit. Even Dr. Gary Habermas does not think it is a sure thing because someone could recreate it tomorrow, which would invalidate it.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

We have zero evidence that either St. Luke's painting or the Shroud was venerated. It is a matter of debate whether the shroud is legit. Even Dr. Gary Habermas does not think it is a sure thing because someone could recreate it tomorrow, which would invalidate it.

But no one HAS recreated it...it can be traced back to 1st century Jerusalem

 

[All Becomes New]

But no one HAS recreated it...it can be traced back to 1st century Jerusalem

I think you are overly optimistic about the Shroud. I think it is more likely it is authentic, but it is not a lock. It only helps the case for Christianity and does not hurt it in any way. However, there is zero evidence that the shroud was venerated.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I think you are overly optimistic about the Shroud. I think it is more likely it is authentic, but it is not a lock. It only helps the case for Christianity and does not hurt it in any way. However, there is zero evidence that the shroud was venerated.

Proof from the 1st century, probably not, but definitely in years later...

 

[Lukaris]

Most people couldn’t read and didn’t have a Jewish background towards images. They needed depictions to enhance their faith just like literate people need something to read. Today we have the best of both if we utilize these blessings properly.

Even in the Old Testament, the Ark of Testimony had angels depicted ( Exodus 25:10-22).

 

[All Becomes New]

Proof from the 1st century, probably not, but definitely in years later...

By all means, quote your sources.

 

[All Becomes New]

Most people couldn’t read.

Completely irrelevant.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Proof from the 1st century, probably not, but definitely in years later...

look into how it was used in Constantinople...

 

[Lukaris]

Completely irrelevant.

Completely irrelevant.

So you knew the needs of people who couldn’t read in ancient times and discard that even the Jews had a visual aid in their worship.

 

[All Becomes New]

So you knew the needs of people who couldn’t read in ancient times and discard that even the Jews had a visual aid in their worship.

Going to need a source that says Jews had visual aids in worship. And I don't mean the Talmud, which is horribly cherry-picked.

 

[All Becomes New]

look into how it was used in Constantinople...

Please just provide a quote.

Like the example below:

"Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved."
St. Clement "The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians Chapter VII"

 

[Lukaris]

Going to need a source that says Jews had visual aids in worship. And I don't mean the Talmud, which is horribly cherry-picked.

I just gave an account of the carved cherubim from Exodus 25:10-22 which was carried on by Solomon as accounted for 2 Chronicles 3:1-17.

I have no idea what your association of the Talmud with the Bible is. Apparently you have some tactic to preempt any response and always demand a source even if it has been given.

 

[All Becomes New]

I just gave an account of the carved cherubim from Exodus 25:10-22 which was carried on by Solomon as accounted for 2 Chronicles 3:1-17.

I'm not sure how this shows they were venerated as such. In fact, only the high priest could go into the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement. I'm not sure how this affirms your view.

 

[All Becomes New]

"There is little support for 'Cult of Sacred images' in pre-iconoclast Bizantium. The textual and material evidence agree that sacred portraits existed, but there is no indication that these images received special veneration in any consistent fashion before the late seventh century."
~ Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon "Bizantium in the Iconoclast Era 680-850: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 62"

 

[nutroll]

"There is little support for 'Cult of Sacred images' in pre-iconoclast Bizantium. The textual and material evidence agree that sacred portraits existed, but there is no indication that these images received special veneration in any consistent fashion before the late seventh century."
~ Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon "Bizantium in the Iconoclast Era 680-850: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 62"

I've highlighted the key word in this quote which points to the entire problem with this thread. You've narrowly defined things to the point that you know there will be no answer sufficient to sway you.

But you venerate images. You have a picture of Christ on your profile. Why? Why not a picture of yourself? Certainly that would be more appropriate since it would connect the profile to you. I assume it's because you want to honor Christ by putting Him above yourself. That's veneration. When we hang a picture of our kids on the wall, or remember Grandma by a portrait, or put someone's picture on our phone screen we show honor, love, and veneration to the person depicted. And it's not wrong at all.

When icons are placed on the ceiling of a church they are still venerated. People are not climbing ladders to kiss them, but the fact that they were made, that they were placed in places of honor, that they are censed with incense during services -- all of these are veneration.

The reason this wasn't talked about in prior centuries is that no one needed to talk about what is a natural, loving, and godly response to images of those whom God has glorified with Himself until imperial authorities removed them and called that veneration idolatry.

There is not evidence of consistent veneration in the early church that scholars would notice. There still isn't "consistent" veneration in the Church today though there are more conventions. There are a wide variety of ways that people venerate icons, veneration is as personal as the ways we show affection to our loved ones in real life.

The better question to ask is why would someone want to venerate and icon. You will get so many answers which demonstrate not a love of paint and wood and gold, but a love for Christ and the members of His body.

 

[All Becomes New]

That's veneration.

I have a picture of Christ. It's true. It reminds me of His sacrifice for me. That is a whole lot different than using the image as a window into heaven.

When we hang a picture of our kids on the wall, or remember Grandma by a portrait, or put someone's picture on our phone screen we show honor, love, and veneration to the person depicted.

You are getting really loose with the word veneration.

The reason this wasn't talked about in prior centuries is that no one needed to talk about what is a natural, loving, and godly response to images of those whom God has glorified with Himself until imperial authorities removed them and called that veneration idolatry.

I can go find more quotes about how the ECF spoke AGAINST icon veneration if you want.

There still isn't "consistent" veneration in the Church today though there are more conventions.

Who is the Chruch?