Against My Better Judgment...

[nutroll]

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.



You are getting really loose with the word veneration.



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



Who is the Chruch?

Windows to heaven is a modern way of speaking of icons and is prone to misunderstanding which is why I seldom use the term.

So do you actually spend time looking at the picture on your profile or is it mostly for the sake of others who will see it?

I am not being loose with the word veneration as Orthodoxy understands it.

Please break out the quotes because we've seen them all before and they're all bad examples, but by all means...

The Church is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is the Orthodox Church.

 

[All Becomes New]

Windows to heaven is a modern way of speaking of icons and is prone to misunderstanding which is why I seldom use the term.

A modern term? So, who is using this term? Is it Catholics? Orthodox? Protestants who disagree with icon veneration? Where did the term come from?

So do you actually spend time looking at the picture on your profile or is it mostly for the sake of others who will see it?

I don't spend time just looking at it, no. It's a profile picture; it does not need to be something I obsess over.

Please break out the quotes because we've seen them all before and they're all bad examples, but by all means...

"The idolatry condemned in the Old Testament was ubiquitous in the Roman world, and the Jewish and Christian rejection of it really did mark them off from the religious mainstream."
Humphreys, "Contexts, Controversies, and Developing Perspectives" In a Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm, 47-48.
I can provide more, but I want to do one at a time.

The Church is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is the Orthodox Church.

So, what you are saying is that the Orthodox church is divided on this issue? How so?

 

[nutroll]

A modern term? So, who is using this term? Is it Catholics? Orthodox? Protestants who disagree with icon veneration? Where did the term come from?



I don't spend time just looking at it, no. It's a profile picture; it does not need to be something I obsess over.



"The idolatry condemned in the Old Testament was ubiquitous in the Roman world, and the Jewish and Christian rejection of it really did mark them off from the religious mainstream."
Humphreys, "Contexts, Controversies, and Developing Perspectives" In a Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm, 47-48.
I can provide more, but I want to do one at a time.



So, what you are saying is that the Orthodox church is divided on this issue? How so?

It is a modern term that arises from pop theology. It's not a patristic term.

So if you're not looking at it, it's not a reminder to you. It's serving another function...

That quote simply says that Christians reject idolatry. We do. Also it's not a quote from an early church father...

Orthodoxy is not divided but neither is it completely uniform in every minor tradition.

 

[All Becomes New]

It is a modern term that arises from pop theology. It's not a patristic term.

As far as I know, it is a term used in scholarship as well, so not just "pop theology."

So if you're not looking at it, it's not a reminder to you. It's serving another function...

Because I don't really care about its function; it's just a profile picture.

That quote simply says that Christians reject idolatry. We do. Also it's not a quote from an early church father...

And if the earlier part of the quote talked about how, in the Roman empire, these idols were used for cultic purposes, i.e., veneration, then what?

So, find me a quote from an ECF that affirms icon veneration if you are going to go that route.

Orthodoxy is not divided but neither is it completely uniform in every minor tradition.

Then I am not really sure what your point was.

 

[nutroll]

As far as I know, it is a term used in scholarship as well, so not just "pop theology."



Because I don't really care about its function; it's just a profile picture.



And if the earlier part of the quote talked about how, in the Roman empire, these idols were used for cultic purposes, i.e., veneration, then what?

So, find me a quote from an ECF that affirms icon veneration if you are going to go that route.



Then I am not really sure what your point was.

Find me a quote more than a hundred years old that calls icons windows to heaven.

But you didn't put a picture of smurfs or bunny rabbits. You chose a picture of the Lord. It means something to you. You love Him, so you picked his picture. That's veneration. You might not call it that, but it is.

Idols were not venerated, they were worshipped. The Christian church rejected both false images and the worship of them. That says nothing about veneration. You said you could post ECF quotes but then posted something that wasn't that. I already admitted there aren't quotes that will satisfy your criteria and explained why there aren't.

My point was that from the beginning until now, veneration has not meant one single thing, or even a collection of a few things. Veneration is the heartfelt response to God expressed in a variety of ways.

 

[All Becomes New]

Find me a quote more than a hundred years old that calls icons windows to heaven.

Pretty sure the reason the term is used is because it is found in the Bible. So this is a weird flex from you.

But you didn't put a picture of smurfs or bunny rabbits. You chose a picture of the Lord. It means something to you. You love Him, so you picked his picture. That's veneration. You might not call it that, but it is.

Then I have no problem with THAT kind of veneration. But that's not the kind of veneration talked about in Nicea 2, which is the problem.

Idols were not venerated, they were worshipped.

Incorrect. They were used in the same way you use them today.

You said you could post ECF quotes but then posted something that wasn't that.

Coming right up!

"Being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues."
~ Origen "Contra Celsus 7.41"

Is that clear enough for you?

Veneration is the heartfelt response to God expressed in a variety of ways.

Using an image or statue, which I reject. My view aligns more with Lutherans anyways. I am not against all uses of images, just bowing down to, kissing, and praying through them.

 

[nutroll]

Pretty sure the reason the term is used is because it is found in the Bible. So this is a weird flex from you.



Then I have no problem with THAT kind of veneration. But that's not the kind of veneration talked about in Nicea 2, which is the problem.



Incorrect. They were used in the same way you use them today.



Coming right up!

"Being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues."
~ Origen "Contra Celsus 7.41"

Is that clear enough for you?



Using an image or statue, which I reject. My view aligns more with Lutherans anyways. I am not against all uses of images, just bowing down to, kissing, and praying through them.

"Windows to heaven" is in the Bible, huh? I'm gonna need chapter and verse on that one...

My point is that veneration is all the same even if it looks different. Europeans kids each other, Americans shake hands, Japan's now to each other. They're all veneration, but they differ in form...

The worship of idols was not what you think. It was more than bowing or kissing. There was sacrifice involved.

Origen is not a Church Father.... He's been anathematized. But he's again comparing Christianity to idol worshippers and saying that Christianity is superior to pagan philosophy. There were certainly images and statues at his time, so he's lying, completely ignorant, or not saying what you think he's saying. Regardless it doesn't say anything about veneration at all.

 

[All Becomes New]

Regardless it doesn't say anything about veneration at all.

That is really freaking convenient. You're right; he is taking an even more extreme view.

It amazes me how you people twist things to maintain your tradition that does not go back to the Apostles.

 

[nutroll]

It does go back to the apostles. And it is a real vehicle of grace that bears fruit daily in our lives. It's part of the unwritten Tradition of the Church that has been faithfully handed down. The ancient world didn't write down everything they thought or did. Generally only things that provoked controversy get mentioned because they were guarding against such things. Icons were everywhere and uncontroversial for the first 7 centuries. The fact that they were there testifies to their veneration. You don't make an image just because. I don't think anyone in the history of the ancient world would have gone to the trouble of making an image just because.

 

[nutroll]

But you reject icons and their veneration. I find that sad, but it's your choice. We're not going to stop because you don't agree.

 

[All Becomes New]

It does go back to the apostles.

Quotes or it didn't happen.

It's part of the unwritten Tradition of the Church that has been faithfully handed down.

Am I supposed to just believe you here?

Icons were everywhere and uncontroversial for the first 7 centuries.

Projection.

The fact that they were there testifies to their veneration.

Go back to the first quote I gave that you analyzed. It says the opposite.

But you reject icons and their veneration.

I disagree with bowing to, kissing, and praying through an icon, not all forms of veneration, like using a picture of Christ on the cross as a profile picture.

 

[prodromos]

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.

Look up the synagogue that was unearthed in Dura Europos

 

[All Becomes New]

Look up the synagogue that was unearthed in Dura Europos

Thanks, that is interesting. However, it is actually dated after the Talmud was written, and there is no indication that these paintings were actually used as a form of worship. It could have just been pretty art.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

By all means, quote your sources.

Antonacci, Mark 2000. The Resurrection of the Shroud. New York: M. Evans and Company

Belting, Hans 1979. An Image and Its Function in the Liturgy: The Man of Sorrows in Byzantium. Pp. 1-16 in Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 34/35 (1980/1981).

Cameron, Averil 1981. Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (The Sceptic and the Shroud). Variorum Reprints (1981): 1–27.

Dalton, O. M. 1925. East Christian Art, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Drijvers, Han J. W. 1998. The Image of Edessa in the Syriac Tradition. Pp 13-31 in The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, eds. Herbert L. Kessler and Gerhard Wolf, Bologna: Nuova Alfa.

Klein, Holger 2006. Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople.

Runciman, Steven 1931. Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa. Cambridge Historical Journal, 3 (1929-1931): 238 – 52.

Whanger, Alan. 1985. Polarized Overlay Technique; A New Image Comparison Method and its Application. Applied Optics, 24, No. 16, 15 March 1985: 766-772.

Whanger, Mary and Alan. 1998. The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery, Franklin (Tennessee): Providence House.

Wilson, Ian. 1979. The Shroud of Turin: Burial Cloth of Jesus? (Rev. Ed.), Garden City, NY: Image Books.

Wilson, Ian.. 1998. The Blood and the Shroud, London: The Free Press.

Wilson, Ian. 2000. Urfa, Turkey: A Proposal for an Archaeological Survey. Pp 219-229 in Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, ed. Bryan J. Walsh, Glen Allen (Virginia): Magisterium Press.

Wilson, Ian. 2001. A Hitherto Unknown 7th Century Reference to the Image of Edessa. British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 54 (November, 2001): 34-35.

Wilson, Ian. 2010. The Shroud, London: Bantam Press.

Wilson, Ian and Barrie Schwortz. 2000. The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence, New York: Barnes and Nobles.

Wilson, Ian and Vernon Miller. 1986. The Mysterious Shroud, Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Company.

We have Icons from the 500s...St. Catherine’s Monastery’s famous 6th century Icon Christ Pantocrator. The Pantocrator, “Christ Enthroned” and sitting in majesty as ruler of the world, was an important artistic type and preferred means for depicting him at this time. It is likely taken from the shroud itself. When researcher Alan Whanger overlays the Shroud face on to it, over 250 points of similarity are observed.

The East was the home of monasticism, the great missionary force in Christendom. Monks trained in the Aramaean theological schools of Edessa and Nisibis flocked to the religious houses so soon founded in numbers in Palestine. From the fifth century it was they who determined Christian iconography (Dalton 1925: 9).

It is believed generally that sometime in the 6th century an icon did achieve the fame of “The Holy Image Not Made With Hands of Edessa.” Wilson believed the date of the Icon’s appearance to be somewhere between 525 and 530. Syriac documents and traditions continue to shed light on the Image for the next three centuries. Recently, Archbishop Gewargis Silwa, head of the Church of the East in Iraq, disclosed an unpublished mid-7th century letter addressed to Nestorian Christians in Edessa calling that city “a sanctified throne for the Image of his adorable face and his glorified incarnation,” an almost certain reference to the Icon (Wilson 2001: 34 – 35). Jacobite Patriarch Dionysius of Tell-Machre (a town nearby Edessa) remembered that the Image of Edessa was in the hands of the Orthodox Christian community going back to the late sixth century. Two early 8th century texts make it clear that the Edessa Image was a continuing and important religious object. The Church where it was kept was referred to as “The House of the Icon of the Lord” in manuscript BL Oriental 8606 dated to 723 (Drijvers 1997: 28).

 

[All Becomes New]

Antonacci, Mark 2000. The Resurrection of the Shroud. New York: M. Evans and Company

Belting, Hans 1979. An Image and Its Function in the Liturgy: The Man of Sorrows in Byzantium. Pp. 1-16 in Dumbarton Oaks Papers Vol. 34/35 (1980/1981).

Cameron, Averil 1981. Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (The Sceptic and the Shroud). Variorum Reprints (1981): 1–27.

Dalton, O. M. 1925. East Christian Art, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Drijvers, Han J. W. 1998. The Image of Edessa in the Syriac Tradition. Pp 13-31 in The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, eds. Herbert L. Kessler and Gerhard Wolf, Bologna: Nuova Alfa.

Klein, Holger 2006. Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople.

Runciman, Steven 1931. Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa. Cambridge Historical Journal, 3 (1929-1931): 238 – 52.

Whanger, Alan. 1985. Polarized Overlay Technique; A New Image Comparison Method and its Application. Applied Optics, 24, No. 16, 15 March 1985: 766-772.

Whanger, Mary and Alan. 1998. The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery, Franklin (Tennessee): Providence House.

Wilson, Ian. 1979. The Shroud of Turin: Burial Cloth of Jesus? (Rev. Ed.), Garden City, NY: Image Books.

Wilson, Ian.. 1998. The Blood and the Shroud, London: The Free Press.

Wilson, Ian. 2000. Urfa, Turkey: A Proposal for an Archaeological Survey. Pp 219-229 in Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, ed. Bryan J. Walsh, Glen Allen (Virginia): Magisterium Press.

Wilson, Ian. 2001. A Hitherto Unknown 7th Century Reference to the Image of Edessa. British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 54 (November, 2001): 34-35.

Wilson, Ian. 2010. The Shroud, London: Bantam Press.

Wilson, Ian and Barrie Schwortz. 2000. The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence, New York: Barnes and Nobles.

Wilson, Ian and Vernon Miller. 1986. The Mysterious Shroud, Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Company.

And this shows that the Shroud was venerated before the sixth century?

We have Icons from the 500s...St. Catherine’s Monastery’s famous 6th century Icon Christ Pantocrator. The Pantocrator, “Christ Enthroned” and sitting in majesty as ruler of the world, was an important artistic type and preferred means for depicting him at this time. It is likely taken from the shroud itself. When researcher Alan Whanger overlays the Shroud face on to it, over 250 points of similarity are observed.

And this shows that the icon was venerated before the sixth century? Everyone agrees that icons started to be venerated. The question is when that started. Also, why does this not come up in the debate about icons from anywhere I have seen? Is your case here that icon veneration started with the ECF or not?

It is believed generally that sometime in the 6th century an icon did achieve the fame of “The Holy Image Not Made With Hands of Edessa.” Wilson believed the date of the Icon’s appearance to be somewhere between 525 and 530. Syriac documents and traditions continue to shed light on the Image for the next three centuries. Recently, Archbishop Gewargis Silwa, head of the Church of the East in Iraq, disclosed an unpublished mid-7th century letter addressed to Nestorian Christians in Edessa calling that city “a sanctified throne for the Image of his adorable face and his glorified incarnation,” an almost certain reference to the Icon (Wilson 2001: 34 – 35). Jacobite Patriarch Dionysius of Tell-Machre (a town nearby Edessa) remembered that the Image of Edessa was in the hands of the Orthodox Christian community going back to the late sixth century. Two early 8th century texts make it clear that the Edessa Image was a continuing and important religious object. The Church where it was kept was referred to as “The House of the Icon of the Lord” in manuscript BL Oriental 8606 dated to 723 (Drijvers 1997: 28).

What does "unpublished" mean? Again, the sixth century is when the scholars believe icon veneration started.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

And this shows that the Shroud was venerated before the sixth century?

And this shows that the icon was venerated before the sixth century? Everyone agrees that icons started to be venerated. The question is when that started. Also, why does this not come up in the debate about icons from anywhere I have seen? Is your case here that icon veneration started with the ECF or not?

What does "unpublished" mean? Again, the sixth century is when the scholars believe icon veneration started.

um you asked for citations so I provided them. When the term "Icon" is used, it denotes a certain definition...unlike "art"...BTW, what is you point anyway and why do you care, you are not Orthodox.

 

[All4Christ]

The following was written by Eusebius. He was not orthodox in his theology and was a proponent of Arianism, but his historical writings are useful.

While not explicit in descriptions of “how” they were venerated, he is very clear that there were Christian images and memorials that were honored and revered - and that images of the apostles and Christ were preserved from the earliest times of the Church.

I am not engaging in debates about this - but thought it may be useful and that it may be an interesting read.

1. Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the womanwith an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there.

2. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a womankneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.

3. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city.

4. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers. CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book VII (Eusebius)

 

[notRusskiyMir]

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.



You are getting really loose with the word veneration.



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



Who is the Chruch?

I think Nicea 2 is an accretion in the Chruch.

"Who is the Chruch?" Uhhh, you should know!

Appeals to Jewish practices is problematic. Recent excavations in Israel have shown synagogues of venerable ages with depictions of animals, and I think humans in their mosaics.

Beyond that, this was resolved centuries ago. When I first came here today, the thumbnail on the St JM page - the excerpt - showed you used the word "worship". When I came here it was changed to veneration. Veneration it is!

 

[All Becomes New]

BTW, what is you point anyway and why do you care, you are not Orthodox.

Isn't it obvious? I care about what is true. If that is not your guiding principle, you are going to fall into a plethora of issues.

So far, no one has been able to provide any evidence that the cultic use of icons goes back to the sixth century. That's what I have said since the beginning--that it does not go back to the apostles.

 

[All Becomes New]

Beyond that, this was resolved centuries ago. When I first came here today, the thumbnail on the St JM page - the excerpt - showed you used the word "worship". When I came here it was changed to veneration. Veneration it is!

I didn't change anything.