Icons...

[Thekla]

Of the opposing or differing icons of the Christ...Which one is the right one?

Does it depict the description of the Messiah put forth in Colossians?

1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


Doubtful?

All of the Gospels are "icons" of Christ in words; which one is the "best" icon ?

And again, which of the senses if any should not be put in service to God, should not be used in testimony to Christ ?

 

[simonthezealot]

All of the Gospels are "icons" of Christ in words; which one is the "best" icon ?

And again, which of the senses if any should not be put in service to God, should not be used in testimony to Christ ?

So you're saying they are God-breathed and per God's word useful for correction and so on?

Senses? We are told to love the Lord with all our heart soul and mind...Not our smelling seeing and touching.

 

[simonthezealot]

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.

You are aware the Eusebius Martyr and Clement of alexandria just to name a few, opposed art reproductions?

 

[simonthezealot]

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.

Non issue here, sacred scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Icons NOT.

 

[ivebeenshown]

So you're saying they are God-breathed and per God's word useful for correction and so on?

Senses? We are told to love the Lord with all our heart soul and mind...Not our smelling seeing and touching.

We are told to love not just in words but in deed and truth.

You are aware the Eusebius Martyr and Clement of alexandria just to name a few, opposed art reproductions?

That is interesting.

Non issue here, sacred scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Icons NOT.

Is it bad to give children a Noah's ark picture book?

 

[simonthezealot]

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

What i mean by absolute truth is that which corresponds to reality as perceived by God and is displayed in His word.
If you don't think a person can come to absolute truth in scripture then you are more closed minded than the athiests.

Paul says [FONT=&quot]“If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
We are capable of reading and interpreting scripture.
[/FONT]

 

[simonthezealot]

No, it is not an excuse. We must take care not to trespass God's commandments.

Correct, such as...

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

[avra34v2]

Non issue here, sacred scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Icons NOT.

the autographs were inspired, our English translations or even our manuscripts for that matter, are not

 

[Thekla]

So you're saying they are God-breathed and per God's word useful for correction and so on?

The Gospels are "icons" of Christ (they describe Him, what He does, what He says, etc.); are they the same as Christ ? Are some Gospels more accurate than others ?

Senses? We are told to love the Lord with all our heart soul and mind...Not our smelling seeing and touching.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 1 John 1:1

There are three of the senses mentioned by John.
These senses mentioned are 'used' in testimony to Christ.

The "soul" typically means life lived; what disincludes the sense of sight from being in service to Christ and in testimony to Christ ?

 

[Thekla]

Non issue here, sacred scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Icons NOT.

So does this mean that only the writing of Scripture, but no other human or human activity since, has been inspired by the Holy Spirit ?

 

[Thekla]

Correct, such as...

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

There are two options:

either all images of creation are forbidden (including photographs, painted landscapes, etc.) or it is forbidden to worship creation, ie call that which is created "God".

 

[Thekla]

Again, per the sense of sight:

if it is not to be used in service to God, is it thus okay to look at, for example, pornography ?

 

[sunlover1]

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.

We have a different set of weights when it comes to what is important in such a discussion.
Since my standard is Scripture, rather than historical arguments, we probably
wont have a great discussion in this area.
Just saying

And again, which of the senses if any should not be put in service to God, should not be used in testimony to Christ ?

He really never implied such a thing, so not sure why you've introduced this
rabbit trail.
We use everything we have and are to the glory of God
IMO

Non issue here, sacred scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Icons NOT.

So does this mean that only the writing of Scripture, but no other human or human activity since, has been inspired by the Holy Spirit ?

We can be certain that Scripture is.
But certainly God inspires men still today.

 

[sunlover1]

There are two options:

either all images of creation are forbidden (including photographs, painted landscapes, etc.) or it is forbidden to worship creation, ie call that which is created "God".

Not at all the only options.

 

[Thekla]

We have a different set of weights when it comes to what is important in such a discussion.
Since my standard is Scripture, rather than historical arguments, we probably
wont have a great discussion in this area.
Just saying

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "historical arguments"; if the links I posted, both indeed use Scripture. The plum line of Scripture is Jesus Christ, likewise cutting to the heart of Scripture, not the graphe of Scripture; thus the discussion is not without Scripture. But, when looking at the historical complaints against iconography, it is important to consider their origin: secular Philosophy, Gnosticism, and Islam.

He really never implied such a thing, so not sure why you've introduced this
rabbit trail.
We use everything we have and are to the glory of God
IMO

It's not a "rabbit trail", nor did I claim that Simon said what he did not. I asked a question which I found missing, and think is important. Christ walked among us as human - with an entire body, to minister to those of us with a body and spirit. This includes sight (for both Him, and us). I agree with you, that we are to use everything to the glory of God. If you look back at the previous page, Simon states: "Senses? We are told to love the Lord with all our heart soul and mind...Not our smelling seeing and touching." (post #42)

We can be certain that Scripture is.
But certainly God inspires men still today.

I agree

 

[Thekla]

Not at all the only options.

Likely, but it seemed for the purposes of the discussion.

Icons are made of matter; if we worship icons or the matter that icons are made of, we are worshiping creation instead of God.

This is true of worshiping anything that is not God as everything except God is created (in EO there are two "categories": created and Uncreated, ie God).

 

[simonthezealot]

Likely, but it seemed for the purposes of the discussion.

Icons are made of matter; if we worship icons or the matter that icons are made of, we are worshiping creation instead of God.

This is true of worshiping anything that is not God as everything except God is created (in EO there are two "categories": created and Uncreated, ie God).

Do you not prostrate yourself before these icons, and kiss them and burn candles in front of them?

 

[simonthezealot]

I notice nobody wants to discuss the historical accuracy of their usage, why's that?

 

[Thekla]

Do you not prostrate yourself before these icons, and kiss them and burn candles in front of them?

Genuflect, not prostrate (though I don't know precisely what you mean by these terms), but not "to the icon" ! The burning of oil lamp or candle is a visual representation of the light of Christ and the uncreated light.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Do you not prostrate yourself before these icons, and kiss them and burn candles in front of them?

I do not, but those that do must take care and examine their own hearts, being sure that they revere the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as the only Lord God. And if someone does those things and says that they only revere the Lord as God, it would be in poor taste for anyone to accuse them of lying about it. I don't do those things but I do like having crosses and little figures of the Holy family to remind me of Christ and the lives he touched.