Icons...

[JesusFreak78]

How so ?

You claim that the commandment is against making images (pictures) of created things; when a child draws a bird, for example, he has broken the commandment per your interpretation.

See response above; your application of your own standard is inconsistent.

Representation of created things is representation of created things, no ?
And that includes photographs or paintings of family members.

I'm done with this since we're getting no where.

 

[Dorothea]

Yes, the Bible is also an icon of Christ.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Can you tell me how engraved words - the representation of created words - can justify what is written in these verses ? Do these verses perfectly and completely represent what they describe ? Can the created words of Scripture sufficiently describe the Uncreated God ?

The written Word is God's revelation to us about Himself. Though it may not be able to fully describe Him, it still describe Him in a matter God wanted to reveal Himself to us.

 

[Thekla]

When one reads a verse of Scripture about Christ, does one conceptually then encompass all of Christ, or part of Christ (per the description) ? Can the human mind comprehend Christ fully ?

Per the argument here (incomplete representation = failure), even reading the Scripture is faikure, since we comprehend not the whole but "pieces" as we read and understand each concept.

 

[JesusFreak78]

Have you read up on the history of the Iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire, the writings of some of the Greek fathers on icons, and the decisions of the councils of Thekla's church to find out why she (and it) believes the way that she does?

Perhaps it would be better if you did that and not just post the usual prooftext from Exodus, assume it means what you say it does on the matter of icons, and claim some gnosticized understanding about religious iconography?

No, I haven't, but I have read what the bible is telling me about it.

 

[Thekla]

The written Word is God's revelation to us about Himself. Though it may not be able to fully describe Him, it still describe Him in a matter God wanted to reveal Himself to us.

God's revelation to us is Christ. Scripture records descriptions of Christ.

It is dangerous to confuse the Logos and the logos.

God chose to reveal Himself in Christ, who was enfleshed and enhumaned.
We represent what is enfleshed and enhumaned in graphe (written images, ie Scripture) and graphe (icons) not idols.

 

[simonthezealot]

Yes, the Bible is also an icon of Christ.

It is God breathed and divinely inspired, are icons?

 

[simonthezealot]

God's revelation to us is Christ. Scripture records descriptions of Christ.

It is dangerous to confuse the Logos and the logos.

God chose to reveal Himself in Christ, who was enfleshed and enhumaned.
We represent what is enfleshed and enhumaned in graphe (written images, ie Scripture) and graphe (icons) not idols.

Which logos was intended in John 17:17 Thekla?

 

[Tzaousios]

No, I haven't, but I have read what the bible is telling me about it.

Why don't you think it is a good idea to read up on those things before you make assumptions about and criticize Thekla's beliefs and church?

Also, it is puzzling to me how you distinguish between self-validating what you want to believe about icons from the prooftexts and actually knowing what the Bible means concerning idolatry.

 

[Thekla]

It is God breathed and divinely inspired, are icons?

Is the Holy Spirit only active in those who wrote the Scriptures ?

 

[Thekla]

Which logos was intended in John 17:17 Thekla?

"I am the way, the truth, and the light."

Sanctification is an action of God; by His logos (which is a fuller term than "lexia"/ single word, instead denoting a full speech including the speakers disposition, aim, method of representing content, manner, etc.and is not the same as graphe/Scripture) which points to the Logos.

In this sense, "o logos" here is not Logos, but is still a term denoting a great deal more than graphe (or lexia).

 

[Fotina]

So why are you still defending the use of icons?

For the sake of iconoclasts like you who repeat the ancient error and deny the holy images. The 7th Ecumenical Council of 787 was about defending the true Christ, true God, Who truly became man in the Incarnation for our salvation. Do you believe this?

 

[simonthezealot]

For the sake of iconoclasts like you who repeat the ancient error and deny the holy images. The 7th Ecumenical Council of 787 was about defending the true Christ, true God, Who truly became man in the Incarnation for our salvation. Do you believe this?

You can not call something levied in scripture ancient error.
It's funny how in the 8th century you have counsels completely contradicting each other, first the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 726–754 which banned image worship, the Nicaea one authorizing it...


I am curious, would EO and RC's consider King Josiah an iconoclast?
(sounds like a good thread)

 

[Thekla]

It was the emperor's desire to mollify Islamic residents of the Byzantine Empire which lead to the iconoclastic crisis.

This view was not in inherent Christian view, but an attempt to enforce syncretism, to "water down" Christianity with Islamic beliefs.

 

[Fotina]

You can not call something levied in scripture ancient error.
It's funny how in the 8th century you have counsels completely contradicting each other, first the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 726–754 which banned image worship, the Nicaea one authorizing it...


I am curious, would EO and RC's consider King Josiah an iconoclast?
(sounds like a good thread)

The triumph of icons of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which as said before is defense of the Incarnation of Christ, belongs to the same Church that defended the Holy Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of Christ, the canon of the NT, to name a few. Are you against this Church?

 

[Fotina]

When one reads a verse of Scripture about Christ, does one conceptually then encompass all of Christ, or part of Christ (per the description) ? Can the human mind comprehend Christ fully ?

Per the argument here (incomplete representation = failure), even reading the Scripture is faikure, since we comprehend not the whole but "pieces" as we read and understand each concept.

Victor had a great comment here.

What does an icon do that is different from a text or spoken word?

It represents multiple elements simultaneously. This is different from reading and hearing which are both chronological activities. Musical harmonies are a little closer as they present multiple notes simultaneously, yet the harmonisations are in series over time whereas the full harmony of the icon is always present from the first glance. The extent to which we appreciate this fullness, the elements we attend to most intently, the thoughts that come to us while viewing the icon; these are also stretched out over time but their distension is internal and subjective, defined by our response to the image.
I think this speaks to why we have canons governing the writing of icons. They are meant to not only instruct us by presenting the truths of theology to us. They are meant to shape how we see the created order, to become our very way of seeing. They are not so much a discursive argument as an instrument of vision. Like telescopes or microscopes, revealing things hidden to the naked eye. But these other instruments merely enhance physical vision whereas icons correspond to a natural faculty within the person (the heart) which is built to perceive the world timelessly (Eternity is set in our hearts Ecclesiastes 3:11). This means, I think, that image is a means of representing eternity that cannot be expressed in text or sound. Icons are images attuned to the natural functioning of this organ and have about them a living stillness, a visual hesychia….I feel this connects to the theology of image but in a way difficult to express in words…sorry to trail off here…
V

 

[Dorothea]

Victor had a great comment here.

What does an icon do that is different from a text or spoken word?

It represents multiple elements simultaneously. This is different from reading and hearing which are both chronological activities. Musical harmonies are a little closer as they present multiple notes simultaneously, yet the harmonisations are in series over time whereas the full harmony of the icon is always present from the first glance. The extent to which we appreciate this fullness, the elements we attend to most intently, the thoughts that come to us while viewing the icon; these are also stretched out over time but their distension is internal and subjective, defined by our response to the image.
I think this speaks to why we have canons governing the writing of icons. They are meant to not only instruct us by presenting the truths of theology to us. They are meant to shape how we see the created order, to become our very way of seeing. They are not so much a discursive argument as an instrument of vision. Like telescopes or microscopes, revealing things hidden to the naked eye. But these other instruments merely enhance physical vision whereas icons correspond to a natural faculty within the person (the heart) which is built to perceive the world timelessly (Eternity is set in our hearts Ecclesiastes 3:11). This means, I think, that image is a means of representing eternity that cannot be expressed in text or sound. Icons are images attuned to the natural functioning of this organ and have about them a living stillness, a visual hesychia….I feel this connects to the theology of image but in a way difficult to express in words…sorry to trail off here…
V

 

[Thekla]

Victor had a great comment here.

What does an icon do that is different from a text or spoken word?

It represents multiple elements simultaneously. This is different from reading and hearing which are both chronological activities. Musical harmonies are a little closer as they present multiple notes simultaneously, yet the harmonisations are in series over time whereas the full harmony of the icon is always present from the first glance. The extent to which we appreciate this fullness, the elements we attend to most intently, the thoughts that come to us while viewing the icon; these are also stretched out over time but their distension is internal and subjective, defined by our response to the image.
I think this speaks to why we have canons governing the writing of icons. They are meant to not only instruct us by presenting the truths of theology to us. They are meant to shape how we see the created order, to become our very way of seeing. They are not so much a discursive argument as an instrument of vision. Like telescopes or microscopes, revealing things hidden to the naked eye. But these other instruments merely enhance physical vision whereas icons correspond to a natural faculty within the person (the heart) which is built to perceive the world timelessly (Eternity is set in our hearts Ecclesiastes 3:11). This means, I think, that image is a means of representing eternity that cannot be expressed in text or sound. Icons are images attuned to the natural functioning of this organ and have about them a living stillness, a visual hesychia….I feel this connects to the theology of image but in a way difficult to express in words…sorry to trail off here…
V

I fully agree !!!

The point of the chronological phenomenon of reading (and indeed, listening to a reading) vs. the wholeness of visual intake is crucial.

The stillness that is "of icons" further trains the senses toward the things of God, and indeed affects the disposition (just as an opposite example - pornography - can affect the disposition).

And this has a feature beyond the one Victor mentions:

Our son was diagnosed with a mental illness six years ago; with his condition it is typical that the explicit memory is compromised. Early in his treatment and recovery (age 16), he was unable to remember the previous sentence he had read while reading the subsequent. By two years ago, he could not recall the beginning concepts of a short paragraph by the time he reached the end of the paragraph.

In his case, the icons were the only "Scripture" available to him; these he could "comprehend", and was able to thus recall and know the Scriptural events they depicted (as these were stored memory).

Even now, though he is a bright person, reading is often difficult for him. Long instructions and discussions or conversations can confuse him.

I am thankful that icons inform those of us who can read, those of us who cannot read, and many who like my son have difficulties.

 

[Dorothea]

I fully agree !!!

The point of the chronological phenomenon of reading (and indeed, listening to a reading) vs. the wholeness of visual intake is crucial.

The stillness that is "of icons" further trains the senses toward the things of God, and indeed affects the disposition (just as an opposite example - pornography - can affect the disposition).

And this has a feature beyond the one Victor mentions:

Our son was diagnosed with a mental illness six years ago; with his condition it is typical that the explicit memory is compromised. Early in his treatment and recovery (age 16), he was unable to remember the previous sentence he had read while reading the subsequent. By two years ago, he could not recall the beginning concepts of a short paragraph by the time he reached the end of the paragraph.

In his case, the icons were the only "Scripture" available to him; these he could "comprehend", and was able to thus recall and know the Scriptural events they depicted (as these were stored memory).

Even now, though he is a bright person, reading is often difficult for him. Long instructions and discussions or conversations can confuse him.

I am thankful that icons inform those of us who can read, those of us who cannot read, and many who like my son have difficulties.

 

[simonthezealot]

The triumph of icons of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which as said before is defense of the Incarnation of Christ, belongs to the same Church that defended the Holy Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of Christ, the canon of the NT, to name a few. Are you against this Church?

Define you meaning in "The Church"
I am FOR the TRUTH.

"Thy word is truth"