Depicting the Father

[Holcomb]

What's the reason for being able to depict the Father (like in the Sistene Chapel, for instance)? I know we can depict Christ because of the Incarnation, but what about God the Father? He doesn't have a body, does He?

P.S. I went to the Ash Wednesday mass today. It was heartbreakingly beautiful. Thanks for your help on that question, y'all.

 

[princess_ballet]

Well we are created in God's imagine, right?

 

[QuantaCura]

What's the reason for being able to depict the Father (like in the Sistene Chapel, for instance)? I know we can depict Christ because of the Incarnation, but what about God the Father? He doesn't have a body, does He?

No, but Biblically he is described in human terms. I don't see the difference between using that imagery and symbolism in a painting or in a text.

 

[PatrickShane]

No, but Biblically he is described in human terms. I don't see the difference between using that imagery and symbolism in a painting or in a text.

I don't think it's a sin to depict the Father, but I'm more comfortable it not be done. It's not traditional in the East to depict the Father.

 

[Woodsy]

I also am not wholly comfortable with visual depictions of the Father.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Don't like it at all. Never have.

 

[winsome]

I presume they are based on Daniel 7:9-10

As I watched,
thrones were set in place,
and an Ancient One took his throne,
his clothing was white as snow,
and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames,
and its wheels were burning fire.
A stream of fire issued
and flowed out from his presence.
A thousand thousands served him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him.
The court sat in judgment,
and the books were opened.

 

[Protinus]

 

[Gwaihir]

It was an ancient belief that knowing the name of a god, allowed you to summon him/her at will. This reminds me of the story of the Genie in a bottle. Attempting to give God any kind of human features, while it may be comforting, is an oblique attempt to put God in a bottle. The stories of the Bible make it clear that God is not in any mood to be en-compassed. There is also the danger that we may see his representation and worship it, which is probaby a really bad idea. At the same time, I love to see the pictures of him in the Sistine Chapel...it just makes me uneasy. There may be good psychological as well as religious reasons why the 10 commandments forbids it.

 

[Protinus]

Great post Gwaihr!! I was hoping to add some levity...If the picture bothers people, I remove it.

 

[Gwaihir]

I was hoping to add some levity...If the picture bothers people, I remove it.

Please don't remove it. It demonstrates a point of view that is valid. No harm done....really.

 

[Gwaihir]

I'll bet there would be a lot fewer warlords in
Afghanistan if we called them "wardorks" instead.

Any...maybe if more of them assumed room temperature.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Don't like it at all. Never have.

]

Agreed. I think it is very inappropriate to depict the Father. Even if Michaelangelo felt like it, I don't think that makes it acceptable.

 

[Globalnomad]

Interesting thread! I've never really thought about this. If I do, I realise I am not a great fan of pictures of God the Father either.

I am very sensitive to the danger of slipping into polytheism by NEVER thinking of God as the One-and-Triune, but ALWAYS as the three persons (I think a lot of Christians tend to do that). What do you think: if Jesus Christ were the only one ever depicted (as the Orthodox generally do), would that help or hinder us in focusing on the One-and_Triune?

 

[Gwendolyn]

The issue with depicting Christ is this: since He is both fully human and fully Divine, He was therefore made fully Incarnate in human form and it is possible to depict Him. Indeed, when the issue of iconoclasm arose, it was also argued that it is necessary to depict Christ lest His fullness of humanity become denigrated. That said, we must keep in mind how we depict Him - icons, for example, are prime examples of beautiful expressions of both Christ's divinity and humanity.

 

[QuantaCura]

I don't see a difference between depicting the Father in the symbolism used to describe Him in Scripture and depicting the Holy Spirit as a dove (which the East has no problem with), the symbolism it is described as in Scripture. We all know the Holy Spirit is incorporal and not a bird.

 

[PatrickShane]

The issue with depicting Christ is this: since He is both fully human and fully Divine, He was therefore made fully Incarnate in human form and it is possible to depict Him. Indeed, when the issue of iconoclasm arose, it was also argued that it is necessary to depict Christ lest His fullness of humanity become denigrated. That said, we must keep in mind how we depict Him - icons, for example, are prime examples of beautiful expressions of both Christ's divinity and humanity.

You are absolutely right, Christ is the true Ikon, therefore we can depict him. Different topic, but interesting. In the East, unless it is a specific event being depicted you will not traditionally find the Theotokos depicted without Christ.

 

[Adammi]

I am SOO slow.
I thought that the OP said, "Depicting the Holy Father."
So I was like, why did we get moved on to talking about God the Father instead of the Pope.
I am easily confused LOL.

 

[Holcomb]

I should hope the Holy Father has a body, otherwise that would be, well, creepy.

*runs!*

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Don't like it at all. Never have.

Me either.

Lets go burn down some cities.

C'mon, that was a joke.