Icons...

[Cappadocious]

I'm telling you to understand the meaning of the context...
He is the EXACT representation...The mold NOT the plaster.
THE actual image! NOT a replica...
the very form of God (see php 2:6)

You are reading your contemporary low view of icons back into the text.

 

[childofdust]

I'm telling you to understand the meaning of the context...
He is the EXACT representation...The mold NOT the plaster.
THE actual image! NOT a replica...
the very form of God (see php 2:6)

Is this what things have come to? Has blindness so pervaded the church that when scripture states explicitly and literally that Christ is an icon using the word icon, that it is argued against?

And these people expect to have evidence from scripture?

I'm sorry, but if they are too blind to see the light shining from the sun itself, there's no use in me pointing to it.

 

[simonthezealot]

You are reading your contemporary low view of icons back into the text.

NO i'm explaining the difference in the Orthodox view of the icon as a replica vs. the scriptural view of Christ as the actual...

Let me put it clearer, icon can be understood as the literal profile or the figurative profile.

Christ is the LITERAL a picture on the wall is the figurative.

Same word different application, unless of course you all wish to consider Christ body only figuratively but my understanding is that this heresy was squashed in the early centuries of the church.

 

[JesusFreak78]

῞Ος ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,"

So you want to argue against Paul himself calling Christ the icon of the invisible God.

You are right about εἰκών means icon, but the point which seems lost on you is, this icon is not a copy of God, but Jesus is the likeness of God, as in being a mirror-like representation. Jesus reflects the the source (God) exactly the way God is.

This is something a painting can never do.

 

[JesusFreak78]

--- If God's finger wrote on the tablets given to Moses, then shouldnt we reverence the words that the holy men of God wrote to us? If you cant read, the next best way to show a story is to paint it.

If you can't read, what is wrong with listening to God's word?

 

[Cappadocious]

NO i'm explaining the difference in the Orthodox view of the icon as a replica

We don't believe icons are replicas, "mere" figures, or copies, or disconnected references.

Let me put it clearer, icon can be understood as the literal profile or the figurative profile.

If by 'literal' you mean 'indistinguishable from', then you are saying that Christ is indistinguishable from the Father, i.e. Christ and the Father are one thing with two different names. *that* heresy was squashed by the early church.

Your notion that something is either literal or a disconnected figure is foreign to the early christians. The idea wasn't around yet.

 

[Thekla]

"the Logos became (eyeneto) flesh" John 1:14 which is not the same as took on flesh.

This is what is depicted in the icon; He who is Son of God and Son of man. The Theanthropos/Godman, Jesus Christ.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

If you can't read, what is wrong with listening to God's word?

How about using all fives senses? We see the icons, we hear the word, we taste the body and blood, and we worship with our bodies, the temple of God.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

NO i'm explaining the difference in the Orthodox view of the icon as a replica vs. the scriptural view of Christ as the actual...

Let me put it clearer, icon can be understood as the literal profile or the figurative profile.

Christ is the LITERAL a picture on the wall is the figurative.

Same word different application, unless of course you all wish to consider Christ body only figuratively but my understanding is that this heresy was squashed in the early centuries of the church.

And of course there is Genesis 1:26 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα
So who else is the icon of God?

 

[Rev Randy]

And of course there is Genesis 1:26 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα
So who else is the icon of God?

Spot on.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, like icons, Jesus was hanged but not on a wall.
Similarities do not indicate full equalities.

 

[Tzaousios]

I would like to see those statements backed up with scriptures (from the bible).

What will you do when they are backed up from the Bible? I am willing to guess that your reply either will consist of "you are wrong" or "it doesn't say that" or both. If it is shown from the Bible, is their a possibility that you will accept it and change your mind on the issue?

The church is the elect or called out ones, how could that be an icon?

This assumes, and possibly takes as a presupposition, that "church" is only the invisible one and also possibly a Calvinistic notion of who the "Elect" are.

 

[Tzaousios]

NO i'm explaining the difference in the Orthodox view of the icon as a replica vs. the scriptural view of Christ as the actual...

Does this mean you have been reviewing the canons of the ecumenical council on images as well as the writings of John of Damascus on it? If you had been doing this, you would not have made the mistake of describing the Orthodox view as merely a "replica."

As for "Scriptural view," I am going to guess that it is once again the view that you presuppose is Scriptural, which reads radical reformation notions of iconoclasm and aniconism back into passages about idols.

Same word different application, unless of course you all wish to consider Christ body only figuratively but my understanding is that this heresy was squashed in the early centuries of the church.

Can you please explain how the Incarnation functions in your notion of Christian anthropology as well as its function in soteriology? It would be good to know this so that no one has to assume or guess anything. Thanks.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE=Tzaousios; What will you do when they are backed up from the Bible? I am willing to guess that your reply either will consist of "you are wrong" or "it doesn't say that" or both. If it is shown from the Bible, is their a possibility that you will accept it and change your mind on the issue?

First give us a statistical analysis of the number of your own "scriptualy backed beliefs" that you changed when confronted by an opposing belief that was also "backed up from the Bible".

This assumes, and possibly takes as a presupposition, that "church" is only the invisible one and also possibly a Calvinistic notion of who the "Elect" are.

That assertion seems to presuppose that a church can be both visible & invisible.

 

[sunlover1]

What will you do when they are backed up from the Bible? I am willing to guess that your reply either will consist of "you are wrong" or "it doesn't say that" or both. If it is shown from the Bible, is their a possibility that you will accept it and change your mind on the issue?

Reasonable question.
18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

This assumes, and possibly takes as a presupposition, that "church" is only the invisible one and also possibly a Calvinistic notion of who the "Elect" are.

17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And 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. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and 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.



More about the Body of Christ

 

[Keachian]

First give us a statistical analysis of the number of your own "scriptualy backed beliefs" that you changed when confronted by an opposing belief that was also "backed up from the Bible".

You mean we aren't allowed to change our minds?

That assertion seems to presuppose that a church can be both visible & invisible.

The Church is visible any time that she does an action that would identify her as the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You mean we aren't allowed to change our minds?


The Church is visible any time that she does an action that would identify her as the Church.

What kind of an action?


.

 

[Keachian]

What kind of an action?


.

Scripture has things to say on the ability to identify the Church through her members.

"They will know you are my disciples for your love for one another." "The fruit of the spirit are; ..." et al.

 

[Philothei]

Well, like icons, Jesus was hanged but not on a wall.
Similarities do not indicate full equalities.

Trying very hard to see the wrong similarities here Rick
Icons are NOT God himself no one is saying this. They are pointers to God just the same as is to 'read the logos of God" Is a biblical quote God? no it is not! We cannot fully express God in His totality through nature that would be silly...

Icons are carriers of the grace of God; also a teaching tool for us Christians and our youth. They are "little Gospels" for the ones who did not had books (back then)...

 

[Rick Otto]

You mean we aren't allowed to change our minds?


The Church is visible any time that she does an action that would identify her as the Church.

LOL, both are great answers.