Icons...

[Thekla]

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

There is not much that survives from the earliest centuries - not even of the Scriptures (not to mention the originals).

Archeological attestation of anything from that era is scarce; iirc some of the earliest is from the catacombs, and from Dura Europa, and from a more recently discovered location (in a prison yard, in Israel iirc).

 

[Thekla]

Link to page on Dura-Europos, showing icons from an early house Church (232-256 AD), and also a Synagogue:

ECArchOne

 

[Kristos]

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

What is to discuss? There was controversy, it was resolved just like other controversies. The true faith was upheld and the rest is history...

 

[ProScribe]

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?

When Christ took on human form He was able to be pictorially depicted.

 

[simonthezealot]

What is to discuss? There was controversy, it was resolved just like other controversies. The true faith was upheld and the rest is history...

Evidence for Luke or any other Ante nicene fathers?

 

[ProScribe]

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

I have several different Bibles and all for the study of Scripture - I don't know of anything forbidding iconography.

 

[simonthezealot]

Link to page on Dura-Europos, showing icons from an early house Church (232-256 AD), and also a Synagogue:

ECArchOne

Got it thanks, i forgot that i had heard of cave cemeteries dated around 217...That being said though if there is no provable, existing Christian art before the third century isn't it highly questionable to assert that icons were used and venerated by the early church?

 

[Tzaousios]

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

It would be nice to see some citations which explicitly state as much. There might be statements that lead you to think or interpret that these men were iconoclasts.

Who is "Eusebius Martyr," by the way?

What i mean by absolute truth is that which corresponds to reality as perceived by God and is displayed in His word.

Alright, that is a nice statement to beat one's chest and wave one's fist in the air over. However, that is not the method you have been demonstrating so far in this thread. You have not gone simply from God's word, to reality, and to the page. You have made interpretations and inferences based upon what you think and hope God's word says about images. Thus, there is the thorny matter of presuppositions.

If you don't think a person can come to absolute truth in scripture then you are more closed minded than the athiests.

This is just a rhetorical swipe at me because I have shown disagreement and have not towed the stereotypical Evangelical Protestant line concerning images.

 

[Tzaousios]

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

Oh, I don't know, perhaps it is because those in favor of icons do not want to go through the trouble of collecting historical references for you only to have you reject them out of hand as not being the Bible? I can think of some other reasons as well...

 

[Tzaousios]

Evidence for Luke or any other Ante nicene fathers?

Got it thanks, i forgot that i had heard of cave cemeteries dated around 217...That being said though if there is no provable, existing Christian art before the third century isn't it highly questionable to assert that icons were used and venerated by the early church?

Your artificial picking and choosing of dates is very suspicious. What is the reason for this?

Is it because you think there is some pure, pristine remnant of proto-Evangelical Protestant Christians who only believed the Bible, and after turned into tainted, blemished Roman Catholic-like Christians who did things like worship Mary and the Saints, cannibalize the Eucharist, and bowed before graven images?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Icons....

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?

Not that I know of. Perhaps statues might be

http://www.christianforums.com/t7509824/
Diffefrence between Icons and Statues

Can someone here please explain to me the difference between Icons and Statues/Statuetts as used in the EO and RC Denominations/churches. Thanks

 

[simonthezealot]

Your artificial picking and choosing of dates is very suspicious. What is the reason for this?

Is it because you think there is some pure, pristine remnant of proto-Evangelical Protestant Christians who only believed the Bible, and after turned into tainted, blemished Roman Catholic-like Christians who did things like worship Mary and the Saints, cannibalize the Eucharist, and bowed before graven images?

It's not an artificial date, Catacomb of Callistus, has long been dated to 217.
Named after the bishop of that name who was charged with maintaining the cemetery, his bishopric starting in 217.

There is a remnant of Pauline/Augustine/Calvin Christians in the early church...Clement Hegessipus and the Shepherd of Hermas are 3 off the top of my head...

 

[Thekla]

Got it thanks, i forgot that i had heard of cave cemeteries dated around 217...That being said though if there is no provable, existing Christian art before the third century isn't it highly questionable to assert that icons were used and venerated by the early church?

I'm not sure that it can be said to be "highly questionable".

Nor is use exclusive to view re:, for example,images in general.

(Art in general is more typical of a "post scarcity" era both in income and absence of duress.)

That we have only scattered fragments and no originals of the NT Scriptures would not, to me, indicate that the NT writings were not valued in the earliest centuries.

 

[simonthezealot]

It would be nice to see some citations which explicitly state as much. There might be statements that lead you to think or interpret that these men were iconoclasts.

Who is "Eusebius Martyr," by the way?

Eusebius a church historian, Martyr being Justin Martyr...

Justin Martyr opposes venerating images of the dead and making images of God:
"And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God (for we do not consider that God has such a form as some say that they imitate to His honour), but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared." (First Apology, 9)
He mentions the fact that the entities being honored are dead as a reason for not venerating their images. He criticizes attempts to portray God with images that aren't accurate representations of what God looks like. The same reasoning would prohibit Roman Catholics from venerating images of the deceased and making images of God, since they don't know what God looks like.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Instead of guessing look up the answers, that way you KNOW.

We don't worship angels, though.

 

[UncleDave]

I do not believe icons per se are contrary to scripture. It's a person's belief regarding them that holds meaning.

The presence of icons in the church does not equate to idolatry. The acts of bowing or praying before an icon do not necessarily equate to idolatry, unless the person doing the bowing/praying expects the icon itself to somehow have the power to effect anything. As long as the focus is on GOD and the worship is of Him alone, then traditions surrounding the icon and the presence thereof are benign.

Same thing regarding Mary, the Saints, or anything else the RCC is accused of worshipping... (sorry, long day).

 

[ivebeenshown]

Eusebius a church historian, Martyr being Justin Martyr...

Justin Martyr opposes venerating images of the dead and making images of God:
"And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God (for we do not consider that God has such a form as some say that they imitate to His honour), but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared." (First Apology, 9)
He mentions the fact that the entities being honored are dead as a reason for not venerating their images. He criticizes attempts to portray God with images that aren't accurate representations of what God looks like. The same reasoning would prohibit Roman Catholics from venerating images of the deceased and making images of God, since they don't know what God looks like.

The cited passage only speaks of deities that men have formed and called gods. We do not regard the Saints as gods. He says that the idols they have formed are lifeless and dead, referring to the statues themselves. The Saints are not dead, they are alive in Christ, and we do not think that the icons themselves are living. Also, 'God' may refer to any of the persons of the Godhead, including the Father who has no tangible appearance. The Son, however, walked the earth and was visible to the eye.

It appears to me that your remarks are inaccurate to what is actually stated in the text.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Instead of guessing look up the answers, that way you KNOW.

Btw, just in case thou didn't knowest, this is a Christian only board

 

[Thekla]

Eusebius a church historian, Martyr being Justin Martyr...

Justin Martyr opposes venerating images of the dead and making images of God:
"And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God (for we do not consider that God has such a form as some say that they imitate to His honour), but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared." (First Apology, 9)
He mentions the fact that the entities being honored are dead as a reason for not venerating their images. He criticizes attempts to portray God with images that aren't accurate representations of what God looks like. The same reasoning would prohibit Roman Catholics from venerating images of the deceased and making images of God, since they don't know what God looks like.

But we know that icons are not gods nor God - so what is the connection

 

[Tzaousios]

It's not an artificial date, Catacomb of Callistus, has long been dated to 217.
Named after the bishop of that name who was charged with maintaining the cemetery, his bishopric starting in 217.

I am not talking about that one. What I meant was whatever artificial date it is you have established for when the proto-Evangelicals magically turned into evil Constantinian, Roman Catholic Christians.

There is a remnant of Pauline/Augustine/Calvin Christians in the early church...

This has no basis in historical reality. It is the pseudo-historical imaginings of J. M. Carroll in the "fight" to legitimize Baptists against those dastardly Roman Catholics. If it does not stem directly from Carroll, it is a trickle down mentality that seeks out of its own paranoia to define every facet of its existence against whatever Roman Catholics do and believe.

Clement Hegessipus and the Shepherd of Hermas are 3 off the top of my head...

Where in any of the works of the Shepherd of Hermas does he say anything remotely akin to Evangelical Protestant theology or ecclesiology?

Also, it is very strange indeed why you would point to Augustine in this. Does he get an honorable mention as a proto-Evangelical Protestant because he made some different soteriological interpretations? In just about everything, in faith and praxis, he was an ardent catholic Christian, and viciously defended it against groups that tried to break away or operate outside of it.