Icons...

[SG9]

Dear simonthezealot, are avatars considered to be a form of icon in this present day age? You have me thinking of the possible and various forms. Thanks

 

[Rick Otto]

Trying very hard to see the wrong similarities here Rick
Icons are NOT God himself no one is saying this.

I'm saying that icons (plural) are not God.
Jesus (singular)is the icon that is God.

They are pointers to God just the same as is to 'read the logos of God"

I don't know if you can grasp this, but everything points to God, for me. Even if it is pointing at the devil, it is pointing to God as well because all creation relates to Him.

Is a biblical quote God?

No more or less than bread & wine is.

no it is not! We cannot fully express God in His totality through nature that would be silly...

No more so than for Him to do it thru an icon other than Jesus.
Truth is stranger than fiction. Psalm 19 is not silly at all,

Icons are carriers of the grace of God;

Many things are carriers of the grace of God.

also a teaching tool for us Christians and our youth.

"Use the right tool for the job." 1st DIY comandment.

They are "little Gospels" for the ones who did not had books (back then)...

Too bad the apostles didn't make them, eh?
How many icons would it take to teach the entire New Testament I wonder. That would be a sight to see, eh Philothei?!

 

[JesusFreak78]

"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.

How do you depict this in a worthy and accurate manner?

 

[JesusFreak78]

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.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[JesusFreak78]

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

We are not disagreeing about if Christ is the icon of God the Father, we are disagreeing about what kind of icon He is.

Also, Genesis 1:26 isn't talking about Jesus Christ alone, it's talking about the trinity as a whole.

 

[JesusFreak78]

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...

First, no one has said you believe icons are God Himself. Second, if your icons are giving the wrong picture, wouldn't you give wrong pointers to who God is?

 

[Thekla]

How do you depict this in a worthy and accurate manner?

What is not /physically/ apprehended cannot be depicted.

So the depiction must be "theologically" (more accurately doctrinally) correct.
Icons use a "visual language" particular to iconongraphy (color, line, etc.).

 

[Thekla]

I'm saying that icons (plural) are not God.
Jesus (singular)is the icon that is God.
I don't know if you can grasp this, but everything points to God, for me. Even if it is pointing at the devil, it is pointing to God as well because all creation relates to Him.
No more or less than bread & wine is.

No more so than for Him to do it thru an icon other than Jesus.
Truth is stranger than fiction. Psalm 19 is not silly at all,
Many things are carriers of the grace of God.

"Use the right tool for the job." 1st DIY comandment.
Too bad the apostles didn't make them, eh?
How many icons would it take to teach the entire New Testament I wonder. That would be a sight to see, eh Philothei?!

"A picture tells a thousand words" - I'll let you do the math

(And of course, Icons are not "stand alone", but are within a context which includes the spoken word as Scripture, homiletics, hymns, etc.)

It should be considered that the greater number gathering to worship, the greater varieties of "learning styles" as well as spiritual maturity, intellectual maturity, etc.

As the gathering is for the purpose of worship and also for the benefit of all, one method of 'conveyance' may indeed "skip" the needs re: learning of some or many. As the entire body is to be nourished, then a variety of means are employed to the glory of God and the benefit of all.

This does not preclude that indeed once the disposition is so God filled then everything does point to God; instead, we are to consider also those who are not of this disposition. (After all, Christ did come to save sinners and all sorts.)

 

[Thekla]

We are not disagreeing about if Christ is the icon of God the Father, we are disagreeing about what kind of icon He is.

Also, Genesis 1:26 isn't talking about Jesus Christ alone, it's talking about the trinity as a whole.

Re: icon - Jesus Christ is Son of God, Son of man, Godman, Theanthropos.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; "A picture tells a thousand words" - I'll let you do the math

LOL!

(And of course, Icons are not "stand alone", but are within a context which includes the spoken word as Scripture, homiletics, hymns, etc.)

Please tell me why you're pointing this out, as I haven't to my knowlege disregarded or dispensed with context.

It should be considered that the greater number gathering to worship, the greater varieties of "learning styles" as well as spiritual maturity, intellectual maturity, etc.

True, but this isn't reason to model immaturity. Rather, one allows enough error to keep the whole person moving forward.
So I wouldn't condemn anyone for using icons anymore than I could condemn anyone for being immature.

As the gathering is for the purpose of worship and also for the benefit of all, one method of 'conveyance' may indeed "skip" the needs re: learning of some or many. As the entire body is to be nourished, then a variety of means are employed to the glory of God and the benefit of all.

Making images is forbidden, excepting of course, the ones divinely specified. I would recommend use of those instead of creating our own.

This does not preclude that indeed once the disposition is so God filled then everything does point to God; instead, we are to consider also those who are not of this disposition. (After all, Christ did come to save sinners and all sorts.)

My consideration would take a different approach.

 

[JesusFreak78]

What is not /physically/ apprehended cannot be depicted.

So the depiction must be "theologically" (more accurately doctrinally) correct.
Icons use a "visual language" particular to iconongraphy (color, line, etc.).

How do you make sure a painting is theologically correct when there is nothing within human understanding that can correctly fully understand God's holiness?

 

[Philothei]

I'm saying that icons (plural) are not God.
Jesus (singular)is the icon that is God.

yeah...I said the same you said what we believe was that it was God... We got it straight no one says that we do not believe that Jesus is NOT THE ICON of God... playing with words any?

I don't know if you can grasp this, but everything points to God, for me. Even if it is pointing at the devil, it is pointing to God as well because all creation relates to Him.

Good for you....but that means by worshiping the Devil you do so for God? Pointers to God in an agreeable manner is not (the Devil) for sure...KWIM? Another playing with words here...hehe

And no...animism believes that all point to God... Specifically icons are used as teaching tools as much as a book does namely the Bible... nothing added and taken out....

No more or less than bread & wine is.

another discussion and no relevance

No more so than for Him to do it thru an icon other than Jesus.
Truth is stranger than fiction. Psalm 19 is not silly at all,
Many things are carriers of the grace of God.

no disagreement here too.... you are saying yes it is a carrier of grace and that is not arguing by yourself here me thinks

"Use the right tool for the job." 1st DIY comandment.
Too bad the apostles didn't make them, eh?
How many icons would it take to teach the entire New Testament I wonder. That would be a sight to see, eh Philothei?!

Tools are there to be used... objects of grace are by no means idols if that is what you insinuate.. that they are idols...lol... if they are icons of the devil or the fattened calf but we have done our rounds of this discussion soooooo are these jews in the pic bellow kissing an idol?

 

[Philothei]

How do you make sure a painting is theologically correct when there is nothing within human understanding that can correctly fully understand God's holiness?

No one is saying that an icon if God... or it depicts God's holiness...it is a carrier of divine Grace cause God causes it to be NOT man.... So anything that represents holiness could be used as a vessel of God's grace or then even we as humans are not icons of God then?

 

[Rick Otto]

playing with words any?

Not sure what you mean.

Good for you....but that means by worshiping the Devil you do so for God? Pointers to God in an agreeable manner is not (the Devil) for sure...KWIM? Another playing with words here...hehe

My disagreement with the use of icons (or any image not expressly ordered by God), isn't that they are worshiped. That would be me objecting to idolatry, which is where using pointers can lead as the story of the brass serpent instructs.
So the comparison to worshiping the devil is invalid. Using pointers in worship & worshiping the pointers are not the same topic.

The children do not appear to be worshiping God. I would not object to anyone accusing them of idolatry.

 

[Rick Otto]

No one is saying that an icon if God... or it depicts God's holiness...it is a carrier of divine Grace cause God causes it to be NOT man.... So anything that represents holiness could be used as a vessel of God's grace or then even we as humans are not icons of God then?

If Jesus is the icon of God, I am reluctant to say everyone is.
Sorry if I'm having trouble interpreting your english.

 

[Thekla]

How do you make sure a painting is theologically correct when there is nothing within human understanding that can correctly fully understand God's holiness?

Indeed, nothing can give us full understanding of God; He is beyond our comprehension.

But this does not preclude us from reading Scriptures.

So the icon uses visual language that is in accord with doctrine and dogma.

If one reads the Scriptures, then it is because one can read and can read specifically the language that is used for the Scriptures s/he is reading. This also with icons.

 

[Thekla]

LOL!


Please tell me why you're pointing this out, as I haven't to my knowlege disregarded or dispensed with context.

Because I was responding to a particular post which didn't mention this context - sorry that I offended you (didn't mean to).

True, but this isn't reason to model immaturity. Rather, one allows enough error to keep the whole person moving forward.
So I wouldn't condemn anyone for using icons anymore than I could condemn anyone for being immature.

I'm not sure how icons model immaturity, but that's okay.

Making images is forbidden, excepting of course, the ones divinely specified. I would recommend use of those instead of creating our own.
My consideration would take a different approach.

You should of course hold to your understanding of the teaching on this (for ex. the Amish do a really full measure of this re: images).

But it is not understood in the same strict manner for others, as God did command the use of images, and indeed archeology confirms that neither Temple nor Synagogue were bereft of "images". Instead, from what I've read their understanding was similar to the EO/RC etc. that it is the use of the image that is central (as, for ex. the LXX says not image, but "idol").

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

No one is saying that an icon if God... or it depicts God's holiness...it is a carrier of divine Grace cause God causes it to be NOT man.... So anything that represents holiness could be used as a vessel of God's grace or then even we as humans are not icons of God then?

Plus, in the Greek tradition, the Father, unincarnate Son, and Holy Spirit are almost never depicted. The Russian and western iconographic traditions do the whole old man, young man, and dove depiction of the Trinity, but the closest you get in the classic Greek tradition is the Hospitality of Abraham- which is, of course, a symbol of the Trinity, not a depiction of the Trinity.

 

[Cappadocious]

If Jesus is the icon of God, I am reluctant to say everyone is.

I would take that up with the Scriptures, because they say both are icons of God.

Why would that be?

Because Christ is the image of God after which man was fashioned.

 

[Philothei]

Christ is the perfect icon of God. That would mean that Christ is the icon of a perfected human being ever existed! That is why there is no reluctance...nothing that is confusing!
Man is and imperfect icon of God for man even in his resurrected state would never be that of the risen Christ. For Christ if fully human and fully God and as he has never sinned He is at the same time not "in need" of redemption as He is sinless... If Christ is not in need of His own incarnation to be saved .....then of course He is the first perfected human being that was the complete icon of God. We though are given the grace to be called also icons for we are fashioned in God's image and likeness. The word εικων is the common denominator for both that of "icon" of God in Christ and the "icon" when it talks about the first