Icons...

[Thekla]

By encouraging the 're-creation' of Christians as the "people of the Book", Islam was discouraging any easily accessible and public display of reminders of Christ.

 

[Tzaousios]

So no one can find absolute truths in scripture?

I think what you mean by "absolute truths" is validations of your presuppositions.

 

[simonthezealot]

Much opposition to the use of art to depict God throughout the early church is available for all to read.

 

[Thekla]

So when people can't defend their position the proper thing is to attack the questioners presupposition and interpretation?

Weak.

I have posted links to two defenses of iconography.

The Christians of the east have not forgotten how Islam tried to truncate the fullness of Christian expression and life, including its (ongoing) attack on any reminders of Christ, including public display of the cross. To reduce us to "people of the Book" conveniently reduces Christianity to a specialized endeavor, denying the fullness.

That some have embraced the Islamic definition of Christianity (Book based) is a recent development.

 

[Thekla]

Much opposition to the use of art to depict God throughout the early church is available for all to read.

And typically quoted out of context.

 

[avra34v2]

1.) Are they contrary to scripture?

2.) While legend has it that Luke the evangelist started this tradition is there any evidence in the first few centuries that this was an action which was acceptable by the Christian community?

3.) Does the fact that the Christian faith has had disputes over this issue over the centuries matter?

4.) What saith scripture?

1) I can't find any reason to believe that they are contrary to Scripture? The commandment in the OT not to make graven images was due to the constant temptation to be like the pagans around them who needed an image of their God. On the other hand YHWH had never revealed Himself visibly (except in a cloud/fire, but even that points to the hiddenness of God's image). God was never limited by a crappy image that the Israelites constantly kept falling into making (how horrifically demeaning is it to think of God as an animal?). But we as Christians have in fact been given an image of God, Christ.

And I realize that obviously we don't know exactly what Christ looks like, but we do know that He was definitely a man. And when icons are used it is never the image itself that is being worshiped, but what the image is depicting (i.e. Christ). Icons are not things that are worshipped, but they are aides used to evoke and inspire worship, they are NEVER the object of worship.

I think icons are also a good safeguard against a tendency to make Christ an impersonal, unrealistic, distant, inhuman ideal. He was a real person with a real body, and He still is. Icons can be a great reminder of that fact.

I just visited a friend's church which meets in an old abandoned church-building that has a giant picture of Christ's ascension at the center. Theologically I think that does and says a lot! It's a physical reminder of this church's focus (Jesus) so they never stray from Him into stupid fads. It also is almost a reminder that Jesus truly has ascended and because of that we have the holy Spirit who empowers the mission they are on. Also, worshiping while looking at a picture of Jesus evokes something profound that I can't quite put my finger on... But again, it's a reminder that you're actually singing to a person and can keep you focused on the purpose of worship.

I apologize to any EO's for any way I might've misrepresented the use/purpose of icons. Just recently learning about em.

 

[Kristos]

1.) Are they contrary to scripture?

Good question. How would one go about determining this? Just pick up the bible and decide for yourself? This would really only result in a personal opinion. I think in order to honestly answer the question in spirit and truth one needs to look to the true interpreter of Scripture.

2

.) While legend has it that Luke the evangelist started this tradition is there any evidence in the first few centuries that this was an action which was acceptable by the Christian community?

Maybe it's legend - I don't know. It's really important in my mind.

3.) Does the fact that the Christian faith has had disputes over this issue over the centuries matter?

Yes, I would say that this is very important. The issue was brought to a head 1300 years ago. People died for their beliefs and in the end we can either conclude that whole church apostatized or that they proclaimed the right faith.

4.) What saith scripture?

We can all proof text, so this question is really meaningless. The real question should be what is the Truth.

 

[Tzaousios]

So when people can't defend their position the proper thing is to attack the questioners presupposition and interpretation?

Weak.

What position do I have on the matter that I have revealed? Yes, it is proper to attack presuppositions and interpretations when they directly inform and guide faulty conclusions. They are directly connected to one's "position." When they are not, it leads to disingenuous lists of rhetorical questions.

Predictable.

 

[simonthezealot]

I think what you mean by "absolute truths" is validations of your presuppositions.

Look if your desire is to talk about me and my presuppositions feel free to PM me, otherwise lets stick to the topic.

 

[Tzaousios]

Much opposition to the use of art to depict God throughout the early church is available for all to read.

Right, which is why your "questions" are an exercise in rhetorical grandstanding and presuppositional apologetics.

 

[Thekla]

Which of the physical senses should not be lifted to God, and to testimony to Him ?

 

[Tzaousios]

Look if your desire is to talk about me and my presuppositions feel free to PM me, otherwise lets stick to the topic.

No, I am sorry, but that is a disingenuous request. Just as you attack others' reasoning behind their positions as stated in their replies, your presuppositions and interpretations are fair game to be held up to scrutiny as well. Why can't you handle it if you think you are right?

 

[simonthezealot]

For you it "seems to oppose Scripture", but it actually opposes your interpretation of Scripture.

Christ came as a human to walk among us -- which of the senses was He not available to ?

(The plumb line of Scripture, btw is Jesus Christ.)

Can man reproduce perfection? Christ came as human yet He is also God perfect and sinless in His flesh. How does man-made art attempt to portray that?

 

[Thekla]

Can man reproduce perfection? Christ came as human yet He is also God perfect and sinless in His flesh. How does man-made art attempt to portray that?

Can the written word portray perfection ?

Are the words of Scripture the same thing as Christ ?

 

[avra34v2]

Can man reproduce perfection? Christ came as human yet He is also God perfect and sinless in His flesh. How does man-made art attempt to portray that?

Man-made art can't reproduce anything perfectly, but it can definitely parts of things correctly (i.e. the fact that Jesus was a Jewish man, who physically was dipped in His baptism, who died on a cross, who ascended, etc...)

A requirement of perfect reproduction WOULD be necessary if the art itself was worshiped. But, the point of icons isn't to be worshiped, but they are to aide in pointing a person to what is to be worshiped, God Himself.

I think it can actually be safer to worship with a reminder of the profound and divine truth that Christ was a physical person. Worshiping with zero points of reference to what is being worshiped is also dangerous...

 

[avra34v2]

At the same time, when it comes to the issue of perfect reproduction, our English Bibles are FAR from perfect, but nobody questions are use of them? Is it blasphemous to use an English translation of God's perfect Word that He gave to us? I don't think that's the case.

 

[sunlover1]

So when people can't defend their position the proper thing is to attack the questioners presupposition and interpretation?

Weak.

Are you new here?

Can man reproduce perfection? Christ came as human yet He is also God perfect and sinless in His flesh. How does man-made art attempt to portray that?

As I look at this thread (past all the diversion bs) I see two questions (?)
One to do with creating images.
One to do with bowing to idols.
?

Question marks because I seriously am not familiar with the subject of icons.

So as an unbiased bystander here, I was hoping someone would school me.
But it seems that the thread has turned into an attack upon your character.

The only thing i WAS aware of already, was that there has always been
argument over the use of icons.

 

[Tzaousios]

As I look at this thread (past all the diversion bs) I see two questions

What is "diversion bs" and who is doing it?

So as an unbiased bystander here, I was hoping someone would school me.
But it seems that the thread has turned into an attack upon your character.

How can one be an "unbiased bystander," especially when you identify yourself with simonthezealot and his position in the next line by equating legitimate criticisms of his methodology with "attacks on his character?"

 

[ivebeenshown]

The only thing i WAS aware of already, was that there has always been
argument over the use of icons.

Yep, true.

In fact, there was argument at the very beginning of the Church, by Gnostics who so vehemently opposed the material, that they denied that Christ is truly the icon of God himself.

 

[Thekla]

Are you new here?



As I look at this thread (past all the diversion bs) I see two questions (?)
One to do with creating images.
One to do with bowing to idols.
?

Question marks because I seriously am not familiar with the subject of icons.

So as an unbiased bystander here, I was hoping someone would school me.
But it seems that the thread has turned into an attack upon your character.

The only thing i WAS aware of already, was that there has always been
argument over the use of icons.

The two links I posted deal with the theological issues re: iconography.

I think it is important to question contemporary assumptions, and point out historical issues (ex., the impact of Gnosticism, secular Philosophy, and Islam on views re: iconography).

RE: the "argument over the use of icons", there are a few quotes typically used to demonstrate this. These are used out of context, thus misrepresenting what is actually being said.

It seems some issues (the senses, fullness in Christianity) have not been considered, and are important to the conversation.