History of Icons

[truefiction1]

The spirit of dualism, that which pits our spiritual nature against our physical even though the two are inseparably intertwined, always seems to be alive and well in the psyche at large: a highly non-fortuitous obscuring of truth and reality with negative consequences for everyone all around.

 

[ommnone]

If I may...

that's one of the problems, icons were venerated long before the New Testament that was canonized, and the council that decided what the NT canon was one that had icons.
...
and remember that St Luke was the first iconographer. I think he knows more about Christ's teaching than Calvin.

I don't think any of these three claims can be historically substantiated.

• Certainly there's quite of bit of Christian art, frescos, miniature statuary, graffiti, relief sculptures, etc, from the 3rd century with trace amounts from the century before, and there's no archaeological or historical reason to assume a general philosophical position of aniconism within early Christianity after the end of the first century (and even the first century is debatable). However, implying that 2nd or 3rd century Christians venerated icons similarly to how the practice is demonstrated in later centuries is a claim lacking sufficient evidence. Additionally, we have some sporadic evidence to the contrary in the works of several Christian writers and in the odd aniconic canon from early local councils. While not evidence in a direct sense, we can also compare the development of geographically and politically isolated Christian traditions that never developed a lively tradition of icon veneration (e.g. the eastern Syriac tradition generally which, even centuries before Islam, while employing figurative art, focused almost entirely on images of a bare cross in ritual contexts) or eventually went aniconic (not counting the symbol of the cross) (e.g. Indian Christianity by the medieval era).
• That council being which exactly?
• The claim that Luke was an iconographer dates to the first Byzantine iconoclastic period. It's polemic from an era saturated in unsubstantiated polemic.

I'm not saying the later Eastern Orthodox practices couldn't be seen as reasonable developments within Christianity, but I am not saying they should be either. Not my business either way.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Certainly there's quite of bit of Christian art, frescos, miniature statuary, graffiti, relief sculptures, etc, from the 3rd century with trace amounts from the century before, and there's no archaeological or historical reason to assume a general philosophical position of aniconism within early Christianity after the end of the first century (and even the first century is debatable). However, implying that 2nd or 3rd century Christians venerated icons similarly to how the practice is demonstrated in later centuries is a claim lacking sufficient evidence. Additionally, we have some sporadic evidence to the contrary in the works of several Christian writers and in the odd aniconic canon from early local councils. While not evidence in a direct sense, we can also compare the development of geographically and politically isolated Christian traditions that never developed a lively tradition of icon veneration (e.g. the eastern Syriac tradition generally which, even centuries before Islam, while employing figurative art, focused almost entirely on images of a bare cross in ritual contexts) or eventually went aniconic (not counting the symbol of the cross) (e.g. Indian Christianity by the medieval era).

actually we have one by St Luke, which is on the island of Cyprus at the monastery of St Lazarus.

That council being which exactly?

Carthage in 397

The claim that Luke was an iconographer dates to the first Byzantine iconoclastic period. It's polemic from an era saturated in unsubstantiated polemic.

here at STOTS we have a lampada from the catacomb times in the Museum, and there are clear images in it. so even if you want to be skeptical about St Luke, the idea that the earliest Christians did not use images is incorrect (remember they came out of Judaism which used holy images).

and the Image of God not made by human hands has a concrete history that dates long before Iconoclasm.

 

[ommnone]

actually we have one by St Luke, which is on the island of Cyprus at the monastery of St Lazarus.

What style is it in? Most allegedly Lukan icons I've seen are done in post-10th century styles. Which icon is this specifically? What's the antiquity of the Lukan claim?

Carthage in 397

Thank you. Tell me about the icons and the source of the claim that this council had said icons.

here at STOTS we have a lampada from the catacomb times in the Museum, and there are clear images in it. so even if you want to be skeptical about St Luke, the idea that the earliest Christians did not use images is incorrect (remember they came out of Judaism which used holy images).

If it's catacomb era, it's very late 2nd century at earliest, unless you all have been hiding some very significant archaeological finds. Regardless, the existence such art is not the issue, as I mentioned in my post. Substantiating the claim that the art was venerated is. There's a world of difference between decorated ritual objects and 8th century theology of icons.

Two asides: Out of curiosity, do you have an image of the lamp? What is "STOTS"?

and the Image of God not made by human hands has a concrete history that dates long before Iconoclasm.

For now, I'm going to go ahead and simply disagree. I'm not that familiar with the individual histories of the various not made by hands images apart from the one placed in Edessa. Which one are you referring to, and could you direct me to some historical sources?

 

[truefiction1]

 

[buzuxi02]

I need to answer some of the accusations brought up in the first two posts with the authentic primary records of the time.

The other day while discussing church history with a friend and fellow believer I was reminded of the Iconoclast Controversy or the Controversy Over Images that took place between 680 and 850ad. For almost 200 years the Greek State church argued over the use of images, specifically Icons and their purpose in the church…

There was NO Greek state Church. It was the official Church (meaning Chalcedonian) of the Eastern Roman Empire. They refered to themselves and still do (as do the secular modern powers of the region) as 'Rum' (roman). The iconoclastic controversy lasted less than 150 years.
The byzantine mosaics of Ravenna show that the images were already in use as early as 560Ad using advanced techniques.

In 690 AD the canons of Trullo forbade the representation of Christ as a lamb only, permitting Christ's depiction only in human form. This is before any iconoclasm, note how depictions of John the Baptist were common in canon 82 This shows that icons were already extensively in use without controversy decades before any iconoclasmic existed:

"In certain reproductions of venerable images, the precursor [John the Baptist] is pictured indicating the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It is a hidden figure of that true lamb who is Christ, our God, and shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves as a fulfillment of this law. Therefore, in order to expose to the sight of all that which is perfect, at least with the help of painting, we decree that henceforth Christ our God must be represented in His human form but not in the form of the ancient lamb." (canon 82 trullo)

This debate seemed bound to happen as the revelation of God in scripture came into contact with Greek culture and religion.

This is complete rubbish and shows the racism towards the "greek" east which was started by Charlemagne. There was no longer any greek pagan influence at the time of the iconoclastic controversy. It was started by coming into contact with another culture called Islamic culture that forbade all images.

Some Christians in both the East and West believed it was acceptable to create representations of Christ and the Trinity but there was also a group of Christians that denied any need for them

.

Images of the Trinity did not exist at all. Any representations of the divinity are renaissance painting after 1500 ad and are still uncanonical in the Orthodox church. This is quite easy to realize by just reading the council that the iconoclasts held in 760 AD. Images of the divinity were never discussed in the entire 150 year history of the controversy because they didnt exist.

The Iconophiles believed icons were useful and even essential to worship while the Iconoclasts believed it was against the second commandment to do so.

It depended on which group. Some objected to their veneration only. The more rigid group still allowed veneration of the cross, of relics, and the gospel book, they objected only to that which the emperor objected to; which were painted color images.

Diarmaid MacCulloch calls this rub of Hebrew and Greek culture the “fault line” for the old covenant forbids images of God in any sense while Greek paganism encouraged it.

More post-9th century western european bigotry with reference to greek paganism because the east spoke the language of the NT scripture and not latin. In The Iconoclastic council which condemned icons, there is no reference at all to greek pagan influences (there is reference to heathenism of the OT) . Their biggest argument against icons was that depicting Christ was either monophysitism or nestorianism because it either mingled the two natures or completely seperated them in picture form. You will notice from their argument that all sides agree that no representation of the divinity is possible. Hence why the iconophiles argued that its not natures being depicted but the person that became incarnate into visible physical matter which is depicted. Here is an excerpt from that iconoclastic council held in 754ad:

"Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians."

By the way even the rigid iconoclasts were not so extreme in their destruction of images when it suited them. From the same council:

"Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service."


Now lets debunk the second myth- jewish culture within the large cities of the roman empire embraced images. Jewry in other parts of the world did not. Im sure you heard of the brilliantly preserved painting of the synagogue in Dura Europos Syria from 200AD? If not:

Dura Europos - Syria

In fact in session 4 of the 7th council there is reference made to St Gregory of Nyssa on OT paintings, most likely from jewish artists and how they still existed:

See how our father (St Gregory) grieved at the depicted history, even so that he wept.
Basil, the most holy bishop of Ancyra, said: Many times the father had read the story, but perchance he had not wept; but when once he saw it painted, he wept.
John the most reverend monk and presbyter and representative of the Eastern high priests, said: If to such a doctor the picture was helpful and drew forth tears, how much more in the case of the ignorant and simple will it bring compunction and benefit.
The holy Synod said: We have seen in several places the history of Abraham painted as the father says.

Leo the III was not immune to superstition. It seems likely that Leo, having fought Islamic armies, believed that removing of images might lead to military victories. Whatever the reason behind the Controversy and it was always a political issue.

So the author now ADMITS it was islamic military battles that influenced the emperor to remove icons and NOT christians nor because it was a newly invented novelty. This author actually spoke a truth! When Leo lost a bunch of initial battles to the islamic armies and saw how they were fiercely against any and all images his superstition got the best of him. The author admits there was no controversy among christians or bishops about images until Leo turned it into a political policy!

The Iconophiles found a champion in John of Damascus (645/676 – 749) who offered a polemic for the use of images.

John of Damascus is further evidence of how well entrenched images were within the Church. John worked for the Caliphate as Damascus was completely under control of the muslims. They even gave him an arab last name of Mansur. Not being under the roman empire but still under a regime that despised images St John courageously defended the use of images in an environment which would have been simply easier to denounce them. Furthermore he became a monk at Mar Saba monastery in Jerusalem a place known for its careful preservation of the traditions handed to them. If images were recent or heretical John of Damascus would have been the least likely to defend due to his circumstance. Also St Theodore the Studite whose debates with the iconoclasts still exist and the entire Studion monastery in Constantinople never waivered against iconoclastic emperors.

he was in favour of Icons and had a layman who was also in favour of Icons consecrated Patriarch. Patriarch Tarasios, with help from the State, held what was deemed an “Ecumenical Conclave” in 787 or what is often called the Second Council of Nicaea which effectively restored the use of images in worship. Some further political proclamations against Icons were made but Empress Theodora (843) restored again the use of images in worship.

So there you have it. Two councils were held in the span of 30 years one for icons the other against them, but the 'oikomene' only embraced the iconophile council. Even when iconoclasm continued to rule for 50 years it was the iconophile council that was embraced by all the people. When Empress Theodora finally ended the ban on icons upon her iconoclast husbands death, a great procession spontaneously took place in Constantinople. The people took their icons out of hiding and made an enormous procession to the Great Church of Hagia Sophia, an event that is still commemortaed and re-enacted every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

This last proclamation of the State church “effectively closed down the possibility of alternative forms of worship in Orthodox tradition.” (McCulloch, page 452)

See what I wrote above. It effectively was closed because the iconocast heresy ran its course. The rest of the statement shows its ignorance and the authors inability to comprehend the mechanism of how right belief overcomes wrong belief. And how that right belief is strengthened in the aftermath of a defeated heresy.

It soon becomes apparent the debate was heated and very political. Icons and other images had a cult following that garnered the support of the State.

I thought iconophiles didnt garner the support of the state or its emperors according to the previous statements. So this book contradicts itself just a few paragraphs before. I even showed by the iconoclasts own admission that secular laws were passed against icons.

Ultimately it wasn’t the Bible that settled the issue for the church but two Empresses backing the Iconophiles.

Read St Theodore the Studite, 'On the Holy Images' or the 7th Ecumenical council. Of course further protestant nonsense with its reliance on sola scripture and personal intepretation of the reformers. Once again the 'oikomene' could have embraced the Council of 754 instead. Yet that council simply became a footnote in history as a robber synod. Ironic though how this book praises Nicea 325 AD even though that council also did not use the bible that much in defense of the Trinity. So the authors even lack the understanding on how councils even worked!

The idea that you could reach God through images is foreign to scripture.

This is not the belief of the Church, Complete rubbish, he could have read the acts of the council. For your convenience a few excerpts:

Constantine, the most holy bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, said: Since I, unworthy that I am, find that the letter which has just been read, which was sent from the East to Tarasius the most holy archbishop and ecumenical patriarch, is in no sense changed from that confession of faith which he himself had before made, to these I consent and become of one mind, receiving and saluting with honour the holy and venerable images. But the worship of adoration I reserve alone to the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity session 3

Definition of the Council:
For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησι&#957, not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρεία&#957 which pertains alone to the divine nature

 

[buzuxi02]

1

5. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which Jacob set up. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found.

Oh really? Where

Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them.

More prejudicial nonsense about 'Greece' at a time when it was never called Greece nor was influential as a center of christian theology. By the way did Calvin know that the 'italian-roman-latin Pope Hadrian also endorsed the council?

They afterwards add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour.

The bishop Theodosius who was formerly an iconoclast made a point how venerating the image of the emperor was legal and not questioned. By the way Calvin is wrong in saying it was a statue. It was a 2 dimensional picture that was carried:

"Moreover, I am well pleased that there should be images in the churches of the faithful, especially the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy Mother of God, of every kind of material, both gold and silver and of every colour, so that his incarnation may be set forth to all men. Likewise there may be painted the lives of the Saints and Prophets and Martyrs, so that their struggles and agonies may be set forth in brief, for the stirring up and teaching of the people, especially of the unlearned.
For if the people go forth with lights and incense to meet the “laurata” and images of the Emperors when they are sent to cities or rural districts, they honour surely not the tablet covered over with wax, but the Emperor himself. How much more is it necessary that in the churches of Christ our God, the image of God our Saviour and of his spotless Mother and of all the holy and blessed fathers and ascetics should be painted"?

Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent.

Here we have Calvin proven a LIAR and a snake. What a shameful individual. Not only does he have a chip on his shoulder because he doesnt understand greek terminology. he makes things up! I have already quoted what Constantine of Cyprus said let me quote the actual primary text once again in its fullness:

Constantine, the most holy bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, said: Since I, unworthy that I am, find that the letter which has just been read, which was sent from the East to Tarasius the most holy archbishop and ecumenical patriarch, is in no sense changed from that confession of faith which he himself had before made, to these I consent and become of one mind, receiving and saluting with honour the holy and venerable images. But the worship of adoration I reserve alone to the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity. And those who are not so minded, and do not so teach I cast out of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and I smite them with anathema, and I deliver them over to the lot of those who deny the incarnation and the bodily economy of Christ our true God.

There you have it, Calvin is anathemized as a heretic for his denial of the incarnation and the hypostatic union who truly appeared visibly and physically in the Child of Mary. He who appeared clad in matter can now be circumscribed. The uncircumscribeable became circumscribeable in the hypostatic union, and this man walked the earth due to His incarnation.

 

[Ignatius21]

That's one of the problems with tradition. Whose tradition? The East? West?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Hi JM!

A number of people here, myself included, are former Calvinists who've converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. I've read your OP thoroughly and it brings up specters of my former self, when I used those same arguments.

Not being familiar with the sources you cite, I won't directly engage with them. Every historian writes with purpose and a particular method and angle--there really is no purely unbiased history.

I did, once, spend a fair amount of time reading Calvin's institutes. But I have little interest in engaging with him either.

We can go in circles for centuries (and obviously, people have) about the interesting historical footnotes over who said what, who believed what, which person wrote to which other person, which emperor deposed which bishop, etc. But in the end none of this will sway anyone's POV. You'll come back, as you did in your OP, to whether an issue (today, icons, some other day, any of hundreds of other issues) is "Biblical." So I'd like to engage your presuppositions, since I shared them (mostly, I'll guess) once.

First, the issue of politics and its role in shaping doctrine. I'll just say that this is something you'll just "have to get over." I mean, study it, try to understand it. But ANYONE can cite politics to prove almost ANYTHING in Christian history really was imposed by someone in a position of power. Yes, emperors and princes and queens meddled in the affairs of the Church. Yes, bishops and monks and pastors and popes meddled in the affairs of the State. And yes, for large swaths of history, the two were often so tightly coupled as to be almost indistinguishable. It continues today in America, with large sects of evangelicalism marching lock-step with whatever the Republican party says, and large sects of mainline Protestants marching in lock-step with whatever the Democrat party says.

Yes, the 7th Council was political. So was the 6th. And the 5th. And the...well, 1st. Regional councils were political. Contemporary deniers of the Trinity will point to writings of the Fathers that are ambiguous, or in some places seem to subordinate the Son to the Father, or the Spirit to the Son, or whatever. They will point out that "orthodox" seemed to fluctuate depending on who was in power. One guy exiled Arius, another exiled Athanasius. And yeah, Constantine presided over the council that eventually settled it--well, sort of settled it. Constantine did NOT force anyone to his way of thinking in some Da Vinci Code sort of way, but yeah, he was involved.

But then look at the Reformation. Did the German princes rush to protect Luther because they all had inner spiritual reformations? No. Tensions were high between Germans and Italians. Many wanted their own local control. They wanted the Pope to back off his claims to their land, etc. The Reformation was HIGHLY political. Calvin was in, then out, then in by decision of the Geneva city council. How about the Westminster Confession of Faith? Was that not political? It was authorized by the British parliament at a time when the puritan party had some influence--then was tossed out when it ran afoul of the king.

My point is, you can dismiss the Church's formal endorsement of icons as political. I can dismiss the entire Reformation as political. Skeptics can, and do, dismiss all of Christianity and probably all other religions as just being products of politics and power.

So where does that leave us?

Second point...you are proceeding under the assumption that you are appealing to Scripture, while we are appealing to Tradition. Man, I persisted in that same way of thinking for a good long while myself. But the reality is, you are no less bound to tradition than we are. They are just different traditions.

• Your canon of the Old and New Testaments is traditon
• Your particular view of sola scriptura is a tradition
• Your hermeneutical methods are traditons
• Your definition of "tradition" is a tradition
• Calvin, whom you so frequently cite, was interpeting Scripture according to his philosophical traditions

The list really could go on indefinitely. Look at how you responded to the point that, in the OT, God commanded images to be placed into the temple and used in worship. It's the same argument I used. Basically, "Well, in the OT, God commanded his people explicitly, but in the NT, God does not command the use of images--therefore we cannot use images." It's the conclusion that we need to focus on. Basically, this Puritan-style hermeneutic says "whatever is not commanded in the text, explicitly, is forbidden." Maybe you call it the "Regulative Principle of Worship." I did. I now call it "The Puritan-Calvinist Tradition of Interpreting Scripture and Applying it to Worship." You'll note that many other sola scriptura Protestants say "Whatever is not commanded, is allowed, so long as it doesn't contradict the text." Thus, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others happily have icons, art, statues, whatever--while others will not tolerate even the cross itself as a symbol, because there's no verse in the NT saying "thou shalt place a cross upon thy steeple."

You have one tradition, they have another. Which is right? I used to engage in those debates endlessly with other Protestants, each of us thinking our belief came from the Bible, while the other guy was stuck in a tradition.

So, before engaging further in the nuances of icons, perhaps you can tell me why you accept the traditions you hold about Scripture and how to interpret it. From whom did you learn them? Why did you trust those sources and not others? To which authority can you appeal, that defined THE one, correct definition of sola scriptura AND the way in which to apply it to worship?

Why do you accept a Puritan-style approach to sola scriptura, and not a Lutheran-style approach to it? if you can answer that, then we can start getting down to the real reasons you either do, or don't, accept icons.

 

[JM]

Hey folks.

First off I’d like to thank you for your zeal in defense of your faith. I'm not take any criticisms personally and understand that your zeal is for what you believe to be true and the safety of my soul.

The second point I’d like to make is that tradition, whatever that nebulas word means to you, is difficult to define even from your denominational point of view. You cannot show me tradition without pointing to your church hierarchy which only begs the question. I am aware of my Western bias but are you aware of your Eastern bias? Are you aware of the philosophical foundation from which your church performs theology and builds its case for tradition? To say Calvin was an ignoramus is too glib to respond it, even so, I am aware of all of Calvin’s warts…are you aware of how inconsistent the Eastern Orthodox denomination is? Scripture is said to be “God breathed” or as one EO Priest translated as “God breathing.” The same cannot be said about tradition. Much of what has been posted in defense of icons cannot be demonstrated from history or early tradition and is simply nonsense and Eastern bias.

Thirdly, there is no distinction between the church and state for the Eastern Orthodox, the “ecumenical councils” were conveyed by Emperors, etc. (see the Justinian Code.) This tangle of the sacred and profane lead to the establishment of unbiblical and unorthodox traditions that, from the outside looking in, are pretty easy to spot. The whole mystical tradition you hold to is more Buddhist than Christian.

As I read over the responses I can most defiantly identify with the need to find comfort in human authority. It has been my experience that people convert to the Eastern Orthodox denomination for a few reason;

- They lack biblical understanding.
- They find comfort in the pretend unity of Romanism or Orthodoxy. (see thread on same sex relations. If the priests allowing it are not disciplined by their Bishop it doesn’t matter what they pretend to teach.)
- The relativistic nature of modern society seems to go hand in hand with apophatic theology and the mysticism associated with Eastern Christianity.

I am reminded of my journey out of traditionalisms (Anglican, Romanism and Orthodoxy) to scripture alone...which bring us back to the op. I understand you'd folks would like to take me down a rabbit trail instead of dealing with the subject in the op but I hope we can stay focused.

Let’s discuss images under the old covenant since that has been brought up a few times. Post a few scriptures and let’s talk about them.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[buzuxi02]

Simply your belief in seperation of church from state is a bias have which has lead to thousands of sects, I guess King David didnt get the memo to remain seperate and neutral. Even in Christ's time there was the sanhedrin. All the truths must be demonstrated from tradition of which the bible is just one aspect and yes the entire apostolic tradition is divinely inspired which the bible is included in that tradition. Those practises and beliefs that preceeded it must be utilized in any defence of the faith. Pointing to a passage from a vacuum is not how it works, nor is any argument that claims your intrrpretation is better than your opponents. You must establish a claim using your predecessors, councils, and canons that have already been embraced.

There is no point in arguing any scripture with you since icons are an established tradition of the Church. Yes they are equal to scripture. Icons are the proof that there is a difference between appropriate images and heathenous idols.

Instead you should argue with your fellow Calvinists as to why they have cameras, televisions, computers, paintings, why your children play with action figures, comic books, photography, polaroids. In your secular lives you allow all sorts of images but in your religious lives you have adopted the heresy of wahabi islam. And yes your bible says not to create them at all!

 

[ArmyMatt]

What style is it in? Most allegedly Lukan icons I've seen are done in post-10th century styles. Which icon is this specifically? What's the antiquity of the Lukan claim?

since he was the first, I don't think we can categorize his style the way we would a Byzantine or Georgian icon, but you can see for yourself on Cyprus.

Thank you. Tell me about the icons and the source of the claim that this council had said icons.

the council said nothing to my knowledge of icons. this was the council that put the canonized NT together. the councils always looked to how they worshiped and what was always believed to define dogma. the Church at the time of the council had icons.

If it's catacomb era, it's very late 2nd century at earliest, unless you all have been hiding some very significant archaeological finds. Regardless, the existence such art is not the issue, as I mentioned in my post. Substantiating the claim that the art was venerated is. There's a world of difference between decorated ritual objects and 8th century theology of icons.

the OT images were venerated, and icons were always venerated. it strikes me as odd, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, that there would be a 300ish year break in icon veneration.

Two asides: Out of curiosity, do you have an image of the lamp?

on me? no.

What is "STOTS"?

St Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary.

For now, I'm going to go ahead and simply disagree. I'm not that familiar with the individual histories of the various not made by hands images apart from the one placed in Edessa. Which one are you referring to, and could you direct me to some historical sources?

I think that is the one from Edessa, but the earliest that we know of its veneration was in 595 I think, and that is long before Iconoclasm.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Scripture is said to be “God breathed” or as one EO Priest translated as “God breathing.” The same cannot be said about tradition. Much of what has been posted in defense of icons cannot be demonstrated from history or early tradition and is simply nonsense and Eastern bias.

actually, St Paul commands us to keep the Tradition, whether by word or epistle. if it truly is nonsense there should be some evidence that it is nonsense.

Thirdly, there is no distinction between the church and state for the Eastern Orthodox, the “ecumenical councils” were conveyed by Emperors, etc. (see the Justinian Code.) This tangle of the sacred and profane lead to the establishment of unbiblical and unorthodox traditions that, from the outside looking in, are pretty easy to spot.

totally untrue if you read the canons from the Councils.

The whole mystical tradition you hold to is more Buddhist than Christian.

I would love to see any defense for this.

- They lack biblical understanding.

then please enlighten us without holding on to your opinion.

- They find comfort in the pretend unity of Romanism or Orthodoxy. (see thread on same sex relations. If the priests allowing it are not disciplined by their Bishop it doesn’t matter what they pretend to teach.)

please explain where our dogmas conflict? you don't show cracks in a faith because people within it don't live it the way they should.

- The relativistic nature of modern society seems to go hand in hand with apophatic theology and the mysticism associated with Eastern Christianity.

please enlighten me on this one and how that connection is made.

I am reminded of my journey out of traditionalisms (Anglican, Romanism and Orthodoxy) to scripture alone...which bring us back to the op. I understand you'd folks would like to take me down a rabbit trail instead of dealing with the subject in the op but I hope we can stay focused.

if it is Scripture alone then please tell me what Christians did during the 17 years between Pentecost and the earliest NT writings, or before the Council that canonized the NT, or even before writings were put into books as opposed to scrolls so that the Churches could have the Scripture in its totality?

Let’s discuss images under the old covenant since that has been brought up a few times. Post a few scriptures and let’s talk about them.

the cherubim that were over the ark in the Temple and Tabernacle, and the images of angels, plants, and animals that were on the walls and curtains in both as well.

 

[JM]

I never said the State and church should be seperated...did I? Nope. I simply pointed out that the Eastern Orthodox denominations theology weds the church to the state.

I'll restate:

I understand you'd folks would like to take me down a rabbit trail instead of dealing with the subject in the op but I hope we can stay focused.

Let’s discuss images under the old covenant since that has been brought up a few times. Post a few scriptures and let’s talk about them.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

if it is Scripture alone then please tell me what Christians did during the 17 years between Pentecost and the earliest NT writings, or before the Council that canonized the NT, or even before writings were put into books as opposed to scrolls so that the Churches could have the Scripture in its totality?

the cherubim that were over the ark in the Temple and Tabernacle, and the images of angels, plants, and animals that were on the walls and curtains in both as well.

ArmyMatt,

I'm trying to stay focused on one topic; icons/images. I understand you want to go on the attack, that's more of a way to distract then deal with what I've posted, but I'm interested in seeing how you defend the use of images under the old covenant since you and others have alluded to it already. Let's see a few passages.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[ArmyMatt]

I never said the State and church should be seperated...did I? Nope. I simply pointed out that the Eastern Orthodox denominations theology weds the church to the state.

that's actually a heresy but whatevs.

Let’s discuss images under the old covenant since that has been brought up a few times. Post a few scriptures and let’s talk about them.

I did, those in the Tabernacle and Temple.

I'm trying to stay focused on one topic; icons/images. I understand you want to go on the attack, that's more of a way to distract then deal with what I've posted, but I'm interested in seeing how you defend the use of images under the old covenant since you and others have alluded to it already. Let's see a few passages.

merely me responding for the insult earlier. you don't know that much about our Church or you would not say the things you said. the fact that you said that the Church and the state must be wed means you need to look at the minutes from the 1st 6 Ecumenical councils. but anywho

read Ex 25-26, 1 Kings 6-8, 2 Chron 3-5.

 

[buzuxi02]

Can you first tell us how you justify being on this computer? According to you the OT forbids it. Do you have an Aristotlean argument for it?

 

[Ignatius21]

Can you first tell us how you justify being on this computer? According to you the OT forbids it. Do you have an Aristotlean argument for it?

How is using a computer forbidden by the Old Testament exactly???

 

[Ignatius21]

I am reminded of my journey out of traditionalisms (Anglican, Romanism and Orthodoxy) to scripture alone...which bring us back to the op. I understand you'd folks would like to take me down a rabbit trail instead of dealing with the subject in the op but I hope we can stay focused.

Let’s discuss images under the old covenant since that has been brought up a few times. Post a few scriptures and let’s talk about them.

JM,

What do you think will come out of a discussion of specific bibilcal passages? Before we go there, do we not first need to discuss and somehow agree (or agree to disagree) about how these things are to be interpreted and understood?

Maybe you missed my post above. Issues of hermeneutics and authority certainly aren't a "rabbit trail." It's the meat of this issue and many others.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

ArmyMatt,

I'm trying to stay focused on one topic; icons/images. I understand you want to go on the attack, that's more of a way to distract then deal with what I've posted, but I'm interested in seeing how you defend the use of images under the old covenant since you and others have alluded to it already. Let's see a few passages.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

That's insulting, btw.

 

[buzuxi02]

How is using a computer forbidden by the Old Testament exactly???

For us its not, but for the wahabi protestants it is:

Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earthly beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Ex 20.4

They that make a graven image are all of vanity and their delectable things shall not profit, and they are their own witnesses, they see not, nor know, that they may be ashamed. Isaiah 44.9

I wonder if a gaming computer is the ultimate idol for the wahabis. I'm glad Im Orthodox that makes a distinction between idols and holy icons, a difference between what is an appropriate image and an inappropriate image, a difference between paying respect/reverencing and to absolute worship of God, a difference between ornamental images and sacred images. The understanding of differing usages based on culture, time and place.

something impossible to do with sola scripture unless your a hipocrite.