Icons...

[Kristos]

I asked a simple question, do you or do you not see scripture as a direct revelation from God?

Are you going to tie this into the Icon discussion or are we going off topic again? I think I pretty much answered this question with much more than a yes or no in my previous post and I tied into the Icon discussion.

 

[simonthezealot]

Scripture records what is revealed.

Do you think a record = the thing it records

So according to you scripture is NOT a revelation, given us by God?

 

[simonthezealot]

Are you going to tie this into the Icon discussion or are we going off topic again? I think I pretty much answered this question with much more than a yes or no in my previous post and I tied into the Icon discussion.

I'll tie it in.

 

[simonthezealot]

SO...now let's apply the same thinking to other things that the Church describes as Holy, namely Holy Icons. In the same way, there are certainly icons that are profane, but that does mean that a proper icon cannot be Holy when accepted as such by the Church. They are inspired when the Body of Christ, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit recognizes them as such and calls them Holy. Some Holy Icons might look slightly different according to style and to some degree color, but when accepted as Holy by the Church it is recognized to be a true image of Him who dwelt among us, our Lord and Savoir, Jesus Christ.

What's next then? will the church deem a motion picture a "Holy Film?" God gave us scripture for teaching rebuking and to make us wise unto salvation. He tells us this stuff, can the same be said for "Holy Icons?" or the soon to come "Holy Film?"

 

[Tzaousios]

Are you going to tie this into the Icon discussion or are we going off topic again? I think I pretty much answered this question with much more than a yes or no in my previous post and I tied into the Icon discussion.

No, I think you will have to wait until simonthezealot is able to induce someone to say what he wants them to say.

 

[Tzaousios]

What's next then? will the church deem a motion picture a "Holy Film?" God gave us scripture for teaching rebuking and to make us wise unto salvation. He tells us this stuff, can the same be said for "Holy Icons?" or the soon to come "Holy Film?"

Not a very good tie-in or inducement. Try again.

 

[simonthezealot]

So according to you scripture is NOT a revelation, given us by God?

Thekla or Kristos?
yes or no?
I asked a simple question, do you or do you not see scripture as a direct revelation from God?

 

[Kristos]

What's next then? will the church deem a motion picture a "Holy Film?" God gave us scripture for teaching rebuking and to make us wise unto salvation. He tells us this stuff, can the same be said for "Holy Icons?" or the soon to come "Holy Film?"

Why would anything be next? Icons are not a new innovation. I think history shows that the Church is very suspicious of innovation so it would be impossible to imagine the introduction of a "holy film". The Church is also very suspicious of passing off entertainment as holy. Icons are part of the liturgical tradition of the Church, and certainly not as entertainment. The canons of the Church are fairly strict in this regard, although economy is often applied in our time for attending movies that are not overtly profane. So even the thought of a "holy film" is utterly preposterous to the orthodox mind. I think the key is the use of actors. Basically, a "holy film" would be tantamount to replace the Icon of Christ at the front of the church with someone dressed up to look Christ. For this reason you don't see the development of "passion plays" in the East. The events of Holy Friday are remembered liturgical with a certain somberness and respect. The Icon of Christ is removed from the Cross - not an actor. The Icon of Christ's dead body is placed in the tomb - not an actor.

 

[Philothei]

Thekla or Kristos?
yes or no?
I asked a simple question, do you or do you not see scripture as a direct revelation from God?

It depends what you mean by direct...And then again this seems off topic to the subject matter of this thread. Scripture contains the revealed Truth of God but not ALL that God is about is contained in scripture ...Scripture itself says that not ALL that Christ did and said are in there as there would not be enough space to put them in. Nah..God is NOT all we see in scripture!!
Again you have to classify "direct" ...Maybe Christ wrote something? Then if He did not I would say no. Humans recorded it from what God revealed.

 

[simonthezealot]

Why would anything be next? Icons are not a new innovation. I think history shows that the Church is very suspicious of innovation so it would be impossible to imagine the introduction of a "holy film". The Church is also very suspicious of passing off entertainment as holy. Icons are part of the liturgical tradition of the Church, and certainly not as entertainment. The canons of the Church are fairly strict in this regard, although economy is often applied in our time for attending movies that are not overtly profane. So even the thought of a "holy film" is utterly preposterous to the orthodox mind. I think the key is the use of actors. Basically, a "holy film" would be tantamount to replace the Icon of Christ at the front of the church with someone dressed up to look Christ. For this reason you don't see the development of "passion plays" in the East. The events of Holy Friday are remembered liturgical with a certain somberness and respect. The Icon of Christ is removed from the Cross - not an actor. The Icon of Christ's dead body is placed in the tomb - not an actor.

Film is as much art as still life is.
The image presented on an icon acts as an image of the Christ.
Seems like you're splitting some hairs my friend.

 

[simonthezealot]

It depends what you mean by direct...And then again this seems off topic to the subject matter of this thread. Scripture contains the revealed Truth of God but not ALL that God is about is contained in scripture ...Scripture itself says that not ALL that Christ did and said are in there as there would not be enough space to put them in. Nah..God is NOT all we see in scripture!!
Again you have to classify "direct" ...Maybe Christ wrote something? Then if He did not I would say no. Humans recorded it from what God revealed.

This is not off topic, you simply need to back up a few posts to see how it ties in and once I get a straight answer I retie it.

Direct=from God to the human agent who recorded it for Him to US.

 

[Philothei]

Philothei,
Hebrews 1:1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, 2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. 3 The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.


Rev 22:5b and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

How shall we attempt to present the Holy one of God by our own creations?

How the verses you quoted forbid us from representing Him in His glory that is one part you missed in your reply.
1st quote : does not address the issue
2nd quote : Are we depicting Christ as a sun? Nope!
We do not represent Christ in "another form" other the one form we got to know Him. As a human person...where did you see any icon representing Him as a fish? Actually the first Christians represented him as a lamb and one of the councils condemed that representation. The Fathers were not naive or stupid to allow the "lamb" toremain as a symbol. One actually of our Churches asked if they can depict that image in their solea and the Bishop forbade it.

Why would the Ethiopians be excluded? I never said they were excluded.

You answered that it was the Jews that Christ came for... and by extension to the others...Which is not that accurate since Paul is clear for the universality of Christ's message.

First, I don't like a blue eyed, blond hair Jesus since as a Jew, Jesus didn't have blue eyes and blond hair.

I don't know how Jesus looked like except from what Isaiah 53:2 describes of Him and even that isn't enough to make an image of Him.

If you can't make an image that represent Christ's divinity or physical appearance correctly, you are representing Jesus wrong and by doing so I will say you you're making a god in your own image.

If Christ cannot be depicted then he is not fully man. If he is fully man then he can have potraits of Him like any other human. We do not know how the Apostles looked like but still we base our estimation on tradition and we depict them accordingly. It is not the "art" that is important or the accuracy but the image that is represented. And in Christ's case I gave the charcteristics of HIs ministry (the bible, the halo the inscription "the One Who IS" on his halo,the blessing of His hand)that are important. If the incarnation never happened then def. Christ could not be depicted but because He walked among us as a man the representation is nothing more than a rememberence of His glory and personhood.
If Christ was depicted without having been incarnated then yeah we would be making Him in our image in this case that is why icons that represent God are heretical because God has not been incarnated...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Scripture records what is revealed.

Do you think a record = the thing it records

There is only 1 book I pray my name is recorded in

Young) Daniel 12:1 `And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the scroll.

Young) Revelation 3:5 He who is overcoming--this one--shall be arrayed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the scroll of the life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before His messengers.

Kindgdom Bible Studies Lambs Book of Life Part 1

*SNIP*
........ Now, what is meant by this term – THE BOOK OF THE LIFE OF THE LAMB? The wise man said, "...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12).

The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life. Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order. However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death.

 

[JesusFreak78]

SO...now let's apply the same thinking to other things that the Church describes as Holy, namely Holy Icons. In the same way, there are certainly icons that are profane, but that does mean that a proper icon cannot be Holy when accepted as such by the Church. They are inspired when the Body of Christ, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit recognizes them as such and calls them Holy. Some Holy Icons might look slightly different according to style and to some degree color, but when accepted as Holy by the Church it is recognized to be a true image of Him who dwelt among us, our Lord and Savoir, Jesus Christ.

No church has the authority to say what is holy or not holy. Only God can do that.

 

[JesusFreak78]

You don't agree with the Gospel readings or Paul's Epistles? Because that's what the sermon is about.

I do agree with the gospel and Paul's epistles, but we're getting off topic.

 

[JesusFreak78]

You answered that it was the Jews that Christ came for... and by extension to the others...Which is not that accurate since Paul is clear for the universality of Christ's message.

Can you please post scripture for this so I know which verse you are talking about.

If Christ cannot be depicted then he is not fully man. If he is fully man then he can have potraits of Him like any other human. We do not know how the Apostles looked like but still we base our estimation on tradition and we depict them accordingly. It is not the "art" that is important or the accuracy but the image that is represented. And in Christ's case I gave the charcteristics of HIs ministry (the bible, the halo the inscription "the One Who IS" on his halo,the blessing of His hand)that are important. If the incarnation never happened then def. Christ could not be depicted but because He walked among us as a man the representation is nothing more than a rememberence of His glory and personhood.
If Christ was depicted without having been incarnated then yeah we would be making Him in our image in this case that is why icons that represent God are heretical because God has not been incarnated...

If you can paint Christ as it fits you, you will present a Christ in your image and if your image doesn't line up with a holy, pure, perfect God-man, you have made it into an idol.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Can you please post scripture for this so I know which verse you are talking about.

If you can paint Christ as it fits you, you will present a Christ in your image and if your image doesn't line up with a holy, pure, perfect God-man, you have made it into an idol.

That was actually brought up on this other thread
Are there any icons that present Christ as He is shown in the book of Revelation?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7595576/#post58939658
Who did Moses chat with?

Originally Posted by David64 That's simple, "The Word" was dealing with Moses in His glorified state.

Have you never read what Jesus looks like now that He has returned to His glorified state.

 

[Tzaousios]

If you can paint Christ as it fits you, you will present a Christ in your image and if your image doesn't line up with a holy, pure, perfect God-man, you have made it into an idol.

I am not sure if you noticed it, but I addressed this when you made the same comment previously. Please see my replies in post #580.

 

[Thekla]

This is not off topic, you simply need to back up a few posts to see how it ties in and once I get a straight answer I retie it.

Direct=from God to the human agent who recorded it for Him to US.

Direct is Jesus Christ; the personal relationship with God results in the recording of some of the experience of the illumining relationship/direct interaction with God.

Is there a difference between your son kissing you and writing XXX on a Birthday Card to you ? How are they related ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I do agree with the gospel and Paul's epistles, but we're getting off topic.

Then again, there are some who don't

http://www.christianforums.com/t7599812-53/#post58758390
False Apostle Paul & 2 Peter 3:15-17

I've been reading Questioning Paul for some time now, and I agree with the author's conclusions thus far. I understand many Christians quote 2 Peter 3:15-17 in support of Paul; I'll quote the author's expanded translation of these verses to you for consideration:

Contrary to how most Christians use these verses (based on faulty or muddled translations hiding the truth), he is stating that in actuality:

May Messiah commend us as He commended the assembly at Ephesus:

Messiah's letters in Revelation 2-3 was for His seven churches of Asia which were true to Him. Remarkably, it is also interesting to note that Ephesus is in the ancient Roman province of Asia, of which Paul wrote, in his own words: