• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Orthodoxy & Comics: Is Paganism and the Old Ways being brought back via Comics?

Discussion in 'The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox' started by Gxg (G²), Jan 17, 2012.

  1. gurneyhalleck1

    gurneyhalleck1 In the Phantom Zone in exile

    +4,898
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Others
    Maybe it's just me, but imho having Christ the Lord in ANY comic book is pretty much blasphemy. The Lord isn't a "character" or soundbyte or something frivolous to be fashioned into a comic book. He transcends time, space, and is the Logos. He is not something to be used in an entertaining or jovial manner. This comic book is idiocy....How anyone could buy comics that show Jesuc Christ, the King of Kings, drop-kicking and giving right-crosses and jumping around like Enter the Dragon is beyond me.....

    What's next? Jesus takes on Walter White? :eek::eek:
     
  2. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +10,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    or He goes all Super Sayian for the Transfiguration and the book of Revelation, with the elevated blonde hair, lightning bolts, and making small rocks float off the ground. you could even have Him nail Shiva with the Hadoken while you are at it. all in the name of "art." this is one of the reasons I love Orthodoxy, this childish stuff stays away.
     
  3. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,179
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Speaking on imagery as "dynamic" (As noted before) doesn't address where they already showed the Lord as being dynamic when it came to imagery - from him standing on top of demons to having halos on his head, things that were NOT present in times before icons of Christ came into existence as we see them today.

    Haven't seen any saints saying one can't show Christ conquering Demons in victory of the Cross - at all - but plenty who had no issue seeing him victorious over Satan/false gods (as noted)...and the same with using imagery from culture.

    The halo is from Greek: it is a ring of light that surrounds a person in art, also known as a nimbus, aureole, glory, or gloriole. They have been used in the iconography of many religions to indicate holy or sacred figures, and used in images of rulers or heroes. Not only Christian sacred art represents the halo, but other religions such as Hellenistic Greek, Roman, and Buddhist cultures.

    Sacred persons may be depicted with a halo in the form of a golden, yellow or white circular glow around the head, or around the whole body, which is often called a mandorla. The halo is traditionally associated with Christianity and its beginning can be found long before Christ was born - Horus was the god of the sky... Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris and Hathor was a protective goddess. She was also the goddess of love and joy - and above the head is a sun discs that later were halo symbols.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Use of halos seems to have existed hand-in-hand with Egyptian sun and animal worship..as Egyptians halos, usually were depicted as a large Round "solar discs”, which are different from our modern day conception of the halo.

    But the Greek god of the Sun, Helios, is depicted with a halo around his head.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Again, Greek culture has halos as well, but is nowhere near as abundant as they were with the Egyptians.
    Emotion does not always remain seperate from imagery.

    We already have this with halos - the equivalent of showing power in others. And Christian artists believed that the halo was symbolic of the light of grace bestowed by God....evoking feelings of awe and majesty. It is because of this that Christians had NO problem using an image from their surrounding culture.

    For more review, one can investigate Halos in Western Art: Horus to Jesus Christ to the X-Men - Lope

    The halo itself as well as other images invoke emotion by nature - one can never get past that when it comes to the very imagery it presents. Of course, Icons are not created to force an emotional response. When portraying historical scenes the faces didn't show emotions but instead portray virtues such as purity, patience in suffering or victory. - it was never emotion for its own sake. But emotions involved in response can never be escaped from Christian imagery.
    No one said anything about Christ in agony on the Cross - what WAS addressed was the fact of Christ in physical domination of his spiritual enemies (such as demonic forces) and the reality of his triumph after His death on the Cross ...consistent with the Apostle's message. Unless you can show from Church history and the words of the Apostles where Christ was not allowed to be portrayed as being victorious over his enemies after His death or that he was never physical, there is no basis talking on what is or
    isn't appropriate on your preference.

    Incorrect - seeing that Christ was NOT shown coming off the cross in the Image. Claiming otherwise goes against the image in what it said.

    He already died and it showed Christ in the Spiritual realm making spectacle of all false gods/ powers...1 Peter 3:18-19 on how Christ (although dead on the cross) triumphed and proceeded to descend to come off the cross spiritually/descend to Hell to proclaim His triumph over its inhabitants so that their condemnation was final.

    You already avoided where Christ was described as being victorious after His DEATH on the Cross, addressing the powers of Hell during his time before the Resurrection. And Only you are bringing the claim that Christ came off the cross prior to His death - ...and thus, it is your own claim. Christ never came down after his enemies taunted him while he was dying on the Cross - but it is never says at ANY point he didn't address spiritual powers after saying "It is finished"/giving his Spirit to the Father and doing as Holy Scripture notes with making a spectacle of the powers of darkness (Colossians 2:15 )

    One cannot speak of "kick pagan tail" and avoid where Christ was already noted to have destroyed the power of the Devil. One cannot speak of 'kick pagan tail" and avoid St. Paul in his admonition in I Corinthians 15 with all powers being physically subjected to Christ and under his feet - as it was others not realizing the power of God that claimed Christ never physically addressed his enemies.

    If you have an issue, that's your issue. But the burden of proof is actually upon you - to deal with scripture at each/every point where Christ is described as being in physical triumph over his enemies and where he already made a spectacle of him.

    Of course, by that logic, one has no basis dealing with or reading scripture when it spoke in imagery relevant to the times ....showing Christ as having eyes full of flames of fire, having a rob dipped in blood (As other cultures showed their deities with the blood of their enemies), having swords coming out of His mouth....or having feet like bronze/golden complexion as many of the gods did in Greek/Roman culture.

    And that's just Revelation 20 when He returns - there's also the imagery of CHrist being in Greek culture depicted with halos as other cultures already did when showing the power of their gods. Talking on making rocks float off the ground is small compared to how much more intensive scripture portrays the Lord..where it already notes how " His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light" (Matthew 17:1-3 ) or that " his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning (Luke 9:28-30). First century readers knew exactly how intensive it was to describe the Lord as such and that it was powerful

    This is one of the reasons why Orthodoxy is beautiful when it comes to seeking to capture (as they did in the cultural context they lived in) the power and majesty of Christ in such matters - there was a reality of understanding no one could ever fully capture the fullness of who Christ was....and yet on the same token, they did what they did in manners that spoke to others in the times they lived.

    It was not based on entertainment for its own sake - nor did it become entertainment because some thought it wasn't cool while others resonated with it.

    There were already others noting that any attempt to portray Christ in iconic imagery was childish and not to be done - but it was done based on how it connected, even as boundaries were made. We cannot condone one era in what they did and they go backwards when other eras do the same.

    But at the end of the day, everyone's different in that regards - and truthfully, if one has a problem with Christ or the Divine portrayed in comics in any manner (or claiming it has to be done right), they need to stop supporting D.C and Marvel comics altogether since that is common to the genre.


    [​IMG]


    One should definetly NOT speak of loving D.C in the Justice League since (as noted earlier in discussion with paganism) they already spoke on the Divine/Heavenlies and PORTRAYALS of God Himself when it came to many of their story lines......Zauriel the angel being one example as well as others:


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    As noted before:

     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
  4. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +10,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    I am not sure why you keep posting. unless you can find a modern elder or saint who is all for Christ lariating Satan, you are only posting your opinion. since we are talking about modern imagery, you should provide some modern evidence from someone holy who defends it.

    and yet, I am fairly sure Jesus sidekicking pagan deities after coming down from on the Cross is. so do you have any evidence to support that from someone we should really listen to (like one of our elders or saints)?

    and please, brevity
     
  5. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,179
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Unless you can find a modern elder or saint in Church history who said that comics with descriptions of heaven or angels or Christ were fine (As D.C or Marvel), I'm not sure why you're selective in argumentation. There is no escaping where icons used aspects from the culture to describe who God was - things others in the Church were not all on the same page with. They already used things which were also involved with showing dominance or physical assertion over enemies.

    Since we are discussing modern imagery, you already are inconsistent in not showing MODERN evidence from someone holy who defends any of the comic figures discussed (i.e. Superman, JLA, etc.) or anyone from history in the Church who said Christ conquering Satan/demons meant that He couldn't be shown holding the necks of demons or physically addressing them.

    It was already noted where the saints already noted repeatedly (in explicit detail) Christ on the backs on Satan/Demons - whether one wishes to address it is inconsequential to the facts of what the history of the Church has shown when it comes to the saints dominating demons or Christ victorious and using imagery reflective of what the culture around them did.

    Thus, it is your own opinion that Christ fighting against darkness (after he died on the Cross/descended into Hades and the Afterlife) couldn't be shown in styles similar to what's seen in Superman or Batman and other comics. No one said at any point that to show fighting Bruce Lee style was HOW it happened when he made a spectacle - but what was noted was that it was the Artist's interpretation in the same way icons were made of Christ dominating Satan/having his foot on his back while having a halo in the same way the Greek gods/goddesses had halos and had their foot on their backs.

    Christ was already noted as physically restraining the Dragon/Devil - he was already noted as destroying all of his enemies with swords coming out of his mouth (Revelation 20-21), as well as noted to have all enemies under his feet in subjection (I Corinthians 15 on his dominion) and humiliating all spiritual powers in Colossians 2:15 at the Cross...many other places besides that showing the glory of the Lord.
    Saying one is fairly sure isn't the same as saying the saints could not show Christ dominating demons after he conquered the powers of Hell by His death on the cross - as there was nothing said by the Apostles at ANY point that such could not occur, just as they didn't say that it was a problem showing Christ with his foot on the back. T. so do you have any evidence to support that from someone we should really listen to (like one of our elders or saints)?

    And please, deal with the subject/address as it is - otherwise, one can walk away from the thread.

    The thread is on the subject of comics - descriptions of God or Christ in comics and paganism in how much of culture is referenced in the process. This was noted from the jump - and it was noted in the image where some felt it was inspirational in the take that they had. Others already noted where anything dealing with D.C (i.e. Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman, etc.) was an issue due to how much they portrayed spirituality and Christ alongside them in that universe as being equals - whereas others noted there was no issue describing Christ in the comics as it was a part of the concept of story-telling and portrayal. You chose to come into the thread saying you had issue with the image - it was responded to. Unless you can deal with scripture on Christ in how he was described breaking Christ's Satan's dominion/having him under his feet, there's no logical nor historical basis for saying Christ cannot be described humiliating spiritual powers. No saint at any point ever said Christ couldn't and to argue otherwise is to argue from silence - it's a preference.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
  6. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +10,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    well, that doesn't answer my question. I asked you for any evidence from holy people. seeing as how I don't bring comics to monasteries, and have yet to see a monastery carry a comic where Christ rails demons with punches and kicks, I think it is a pretty safe bet that it is not appropriate. I think most would find the image of Christ leaving the Cross to be blasphemous.

    now if there is anything out there where you can show me that I am wrong, aside from your opinion, I would love to see it. the issue is not comics, the issue is Christ leaving the Cross to beat up pagan deities, using martial arts moves that look like they belong in Enter the Dragon. so if you can find anything to support it, I would love to see it and retract my statements.
     
  7. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,179
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Incorrect - seeing that you already argued via assertion claiming Christ could never be shown holding the necks of demons or fighting. None of that deals with how the apostles described him (Which you didn't deal with when it comes to physical descriptions of Christ fighting the enemy) or where the Apostles ever said Christ could only be shown with his foot on the backs of others since the Greek gods/goddesses did the same thing.

    You haven't shown any saints saying Christ couldn't be shown as physically addressing the demons and powers as St. Paul, St. Peter and others described. One either believes what the Scripture notes on Christ in his victory over the powers of Hell at the Cross (after He died) or they don't - but there were never any rules saying it could only be shown one way - unless can argue that Christ with a Halo is how the scriptures always portrayed him and that halos were never used by the Greek/Roman cultures LONG before just as physical fighting styles were.

    Avoidance is not addressment - so until you can deal with scripture, you are avoiding the reality of the issue. Moreover, by supporting D.C Comics and Batman (which also deal with depictions of Christ in the same manner), one is inconsistent in that simple fact and had no business talking on comics at all.
    None of that deals with showing where comic descriptions of Christ (with cultural imagery ) are not allowed less than having imagery based on Greek culture (i.e. halos, light, etc.) to describe him with icons. It doesn't matter whether you bring comics into monasteries - and it's selective trying to speak on kicks/punches being wrong and ignoring where foots on one's back (no different than wrestling in dominance) is on the same level and was considered such in those cultures where it occurred.

    And as said before, it is ignoring context claiming anyone suggested Christ coming off the cross is good. That is commentary based on your own imagination - as Christ died on the cross/remained there till his death in order to redeem mankind. He did not open his mouth or speak as I Peter 2 speaks when it comes to his death. But what happened AFTER he died is where one has to understand scripture since He descended into Hades/the Spiritual realm and addressed spiritual powers. Most find the image of Christ REMAINING on the cross (as if he was lifeless for 3 days) and inactive till His resurrection inaccurate - so one has to understand categories properly.
    When you actually show a part from your opinion and post saints who said Christ couldn't be shown physically addressing demons, then it'll be considered. Outside of that, it is again your own opinion (divorced from scripture or what the Apostles noted) when it came to how Christ was described.

    It is not on Christ leaving the CROSS seeing that it is a falsehood claiming such since nothing has occurred nor was it said that such was good. One would be illogical trying to argue on the matter when scripture notes that the Spirit of Christ did not remain dead on the Cross for 3 days - and till one can show in scripture where that was not the case or Christ did NOT humiliate all spiritual powers (Colossians 2:15 and I Corinthians 15), then one is inconsistent.

    Again, the issue is what the Apostles noted - and not trying to have your cake and eat it too when it comes to Christ being shown with halos (as seen in pagan culture) to symbolize his holiness and yet saying his humiliating his enemies cannot include fighting Enter the Dragaon style.

    If you can't deal with that, no need trying to argue the matter.
    The thread is about comics, paganism and how Christ is portrayed in them - period. It has ALWAYS been about that - and as that is the subject, that is the focus.'
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
  8. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +10,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    they never described Him the way He is shown in that comic, at all, especially because He descends the Cross

    I am dealing with Scripture. I reject how you think that Christ having His enemies as His footstool = Christ kicking Zeus in the gut.

    not really, because I know it is a fantasy medium, so I know any references are intentionally wrong. I can read Lord of the Rings, which is incredibly pagan, and discern the bad parts since I read it knowing it is fantasy.
     
  9. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,179
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Incorrect, as it already noted directly that he had already died when others looked on him. That was in the print - when it switched to the SPIRITUAL side of things afterward. That was something multiple others have noted on it.

    One cannot make up what the imagery is based on imagery alone and leave out the basics in what the comic said of itself - as to do so would be falsehood.

    Again, the comic image said plainly (if actually reading it) "Then the soldiers came and they broke the legs of the first man and the other man...but when they came to Jesus, they found he was already dead. But that was not the end of the story" - that was on the very first image of the Marvel comic of Jesus on the Cross BEFORE it showed him addressing the Greek gods/goddesses who challenged him (with those things really being demons since 1 Corinthians 8:5-8. And as I said, I didn't take issue with the expression others chose to imagine the defeat of such things since in Greek culture it is the GODS believed by the worshippers to be represented by the idols which are denied to have any existence, not the devils which really under the idols delude the worshippers.

    For St.Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 "4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
    Till you address showing where any of the Apostles (in noting Christ subjected all enemies under his feet in I Corinthians 15 ) or made a spectacle of them (Colossians 2:15) and preached to the Spirits imprisoned (I Peter 3:15) noted that Christ couldn't be shown kicking the false gods, one is again doing opinion

    Scripture does NOT support your view on the matter when it is silent.

    Nonetheless, one already supports the industry and thus tries to justify it if going into it saying "Well, I know it's fantasy" but then saying of others with the same thing "No that's literal!!!" - again, comics are comics...and the same rules apply.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2014
  10. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +10,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    okay, so it was after He died. is there anything aside from your opinion to show that imagery is appropriate?
    well, if your whole argument is that the Apostles and Fathers never made the argument you made, nor did they ever encounter your argument from an outside source, well then you got me. since they are silent, it is probably best we not speculate.

    I don't understand this post. I have never said anything of comics other than they are an artistic medium, and are in nature neutral. the story of Batman is purely fictional, with no connection to reality. the story of Christ is not. it's not good to speculate, as many Elders will say, when it comes to Biblical stuff that we don't know. that is why I don't.
     
  11. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,179
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    When you give something outside of opinion on the issue (as in scripture and based on what the Apostles said) that Christ couldn't be shown that way - or that it was allowed at all to show forms of him in physical domination of enemies ONLY if it didn't involve scenes of Him fighting, then of course one can speak on opinion.

    Thus far, you already gave your opinion already and all that was offered was that one didn't like it - and that was understood. Disagreeing with the imagery doesn't show that it's not appropriate or allowed - just as one not agreeing with Christ shown with Halos (which were used to show pagan gods/goddesses in other cultures who were Holy) doesn't mean that other images of him as such in Christianity were wrong when they were developed in their time based on what the culture was doing. It was already noted multiple times where Christ was never seen as conquered or mocked by ANY spiritual power without consequence after the Cross - and dozens of times scriptures portrays the Lord fighting his enemies/conquering them. From OT to NT.

    Thus, one needs to deal with scripture to show otherwise. I don't really care for the imagery from Marvel that portrayed Christ fighting gods/goddesses in putting them in line (as they were demons anyhow according to I Corinthians 8 as Paul noted) - I know the medium is one man's interpretation of how Christ humiliated the powers of Hell. What is known is that even those making icons used imagery based on what was familiar with the culture to portray Christ at times - and thus, I don't have an issue with others showing Christ humiliating the gods in a fighting style that others respect. Christ could've been shown standing back and blasting them with the might of his power - the same dynamic would have occurred.

    The argument was never on what the Apostles noted alone - they already encountered the issue when using imagery that was common to what the culture around them already utilized to describe their own gods/goddesses - and thus, Christ was portrayed as being with halos, blinding light, defeating his enemies - it was on the basis of speaking based on how others understood. Speculation goes both ways - anyone saying it HAD to be a matter of martial art fighting wouldn't have room to say so since it's an opinion ...but the same goes for saying it WASN'T martial arts style fighting. Whenever one says "Christ can be seen with a Halo or making a symbol" with icons, they already go based on speculation on what scripture notes in general - there is precedent.

    Nonetheless, the story of Batman (As well as Superman) interacting with the Forces of Heaven deals with portrayal - just as it is when it shows them interacting with Christ Jesus. Of course it's fictional - that's the nature of COMICS. But the reality is that imagery is involved and we cannot be inconsistent when it's already present on one level and we have no issue buying it - and yet we do so in another.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
  12. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +10,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    then you should probably stop defending it since this you are promoting speculation about an event that should not be speculated about

    not just me, and I also know that if you showed that to a monk on Mt Athos, he would probably tell you not to look at it and call it inappropriate. this is me having a good idea of not just me, but how the Church takes such things.
     
  13. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,179
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    No one was promoting speculation for its own sake - as the focus was on consistency when seeing the ways the early Church interacted with the culture and referenced aspects of it that people would understand.

    Like I said, I personally don't see Christ doing what Marvel showed - so it's no loss for me if others feel otherwise. What I can understand is that I (nor they or anyone else) was there to see it all - and just as we do portrayals of Christ based on concepts in scripture to illustrate (from icons to mosaics and other things) knowing it cannot fully grasp the reality of the Heavenly reality, I don't assume a comic can ever really show it fully either.

    The moment one said that Christ could only be portrayed in one manner (i.e. claiming Christ could not be seen conquering demonic enemies via kicking or using a fist, etc.), there was already speculation promoted.....and that was discussed in light of where far more intensive descriptions of how Christ treated the demons in scripture were present - that cannot be escaped anymore than escaping where speculation is present when it comes to icons of Christ on the backs of demons with the imagery present in them - one knows already the real Christ doesn't literally look like what the icon presents nor do demons literally look like that. It's the same with the comic presentations - one man's presentation of Christ beating up a demon isn't a matter of saying it LITERALLY happened that way according to scripture/the Apostles. The same goes for the halos - I can't speak on Dragon Ball Z with saying energy glowing around a person like Christ would be bad and yet keep silent on halos and light outlines around Christ when how he was portrayed in the icons was with imagery used in the Greek/Roman and pagan cultures to portray their gods and goddesses.

    There are others who'd also note the monks would also probably note one shouldn't be reading comic books - and other monks have noted where the imagery used in the early Church was also called inappropriate at different times when it came out since others felt Christ could never be portrayed at all in artwork.

    As noted before, in the era of the early church, the artistic portrayal of biblical characters, or iconography, served to teach biblical lessons and church history to the illiterate masses. But a council held in 753 formally condemned the veneration of icons by Christians and called for the removal of all images from the churches, public buildings’ and homes of the people. The basis of the position of the council was taken primarily from the biblical teaching that God is invisible, therefore visible, graven images are not to be made and adored by true believers - and Emperor Leo III (717–741), the Isaurian, believed the only hope of converting Muslims and Jews was to abandon the use of icons. Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, presided over the first seven sessions, and the empress Irene led the final meeting of the council at Constantinople.

    As another noted best:


    The veneration of icons has a long and complicated history. It too is the fruit of men’s gradual assimilation of the Church’s faith. The early Church did not know the icon in its modern, dogmatic significance. The beginning of Christian art – the painting of the catacombs – is of a symbolic, or as Professor V. V. Weidle has defined it, a "signitive" nature. It is not the portrayal of Christ, of the saints, or of the various events of sacred history, as on an icon, but the expression of certain ideas about Christ and the Church, first and foremost the expression of the sacramental experience of Baptism and the Eucharist, that is to say of the twofold "mystery" through which salvation is granted to him who has believed. "In art of a signitive kind not the interpretation of its subjects – for how they are interpreted makes no difference to its aims – but their selection and combination are important. It is not so much inclined to depict divinity as it is to portray the function of divinity. The Good Shepherd of the sarcophagi and the catacombs is not only not an image, he is not even a symbol of Christ; he is the visual signification of the idea that the Saviour saves, that He has come to save us, that we are saved by Him. Daniel in the lion’s den is likewise not a portrait of even the most conventional sort, but a symbol of the fact that Daniel was saved and that we have been saved like Daniel. This art cannot be called art in the real sense of the word. It does not represent and it does not express: it signifies, and it signifies that fiery core, that living sun of faith in the "mysteries" to which the martyrs and pastors of those centuries, the newly baptized pagans, the rite of their baptism, and the enemies of the Christian Church themselves all bear witness."

    But, although it renounced art for the sake of something else, this painting of the catacombs actually proved to be a cause of the "rise of that new, medieval art, religious and Christian throughout, which gradually consolidated itself both in the east and in the west of the Empire. In order that it might arise, corporeal and mental forms and images had to become spiritual, a naturalistic art had to become transcendental. So as to come to life and be reborn, art was obliged to renounce itself and plunge, as though into a baptismal font, into the pure element of faith. It accepted "penitence for its life" and was washed "in the waters of everlasting life" that it might become "a new creature". (V. V. Weidle).

    The icon is also a fruit of this "making new" of art, and its appearance in the Church is connected, of course, with the unveiling in the Church’s consciousness of the meaning of God-Manhood: the fullness of the Godhead which dwells is Christ corporeally. No one has ever seen God, but the Man Christ reveals Him in full. In Him, God becomes visible. But this means that He also becomes portrayable. An image of the Man Jesus is an image of God, because Christ is the God-Man. But, if the world itself and its matter can be sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit and, feeding our bodies, also feed our souls, or, more certainly, the "whole" man, in God’s full conception of him as an incarnate spirit; if the water of Baptism grants us forgiveness of sins; if the bread and wine of the Eucharist give us in Holy Communion the Body and Blood of Christ, then a portrayal of Christ – the product of human art – may also be filled with the grace of His presence and His power; may become not an "image" but also a spiritual reality. In the icon there is at once a further revelation of the profundity of the dogma of Chalcedon and the gift of a new dimension in human art, because Christ has given a new dimension to man himself.


    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    Of course, in time things changed...and what was once seen as bad, it was eventually adapted to. Iconoclast persecution and the history behind how images were seen is rather complicated and has much to teach today...for there were Iconoclastic monks in Byzantine history - something that still surprises many when it comes to noting how bishops/monks actually supported the ban against any and all images of God ....a lot of it based on politics while other parts of it were based on the level of understanding others had when it came to graven images.....

    Today, Others understand the concept of artwork - how it's never just art - and the different styles thereof. A Manga portrayal of Christ can be just as inspiring as seeing him on a Fresco in light of others coming to know the Lord...be it showing him in glorious array or showing him when he was tempted - or, for that matter, showing how it may have looked when He physically drove out ALL others selling in the Temple (John 2) in noting His Father's house was to be a house of prayer (as we don't know how he looked using the whip but what is known is that he was powerful enough to drive others OUT)..

    The nature of comics..

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]




    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]





    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]



    Of course, no one is going to walk into Mt Athos with comic books of Jesus from D.C or Marvel doing battle.

    And talking to monks/priests on the matter, it has been interesting seeing their own take on the issue with regards to the Church.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2014
  14. ArmyMatt

    ArmyMatt Regular Member Supporter

    +10,047
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    that is why when it comes to that, we trust what the saints have shown

    the image of Christ on the back of a demon in a Pascha icon though comes from the saints. until there is a St Joseph the Manga artist, it's just an attempt to be pop.

    have you any names?

    that's not the issue. the issue is not what medium portrays Him, but how He is portrayed in that medium.

    prolly for good reason
     
  15. JeremiahsBulldog

    JeremiahsBulldog Careful, he bites!

    40
    +18
    Canada
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    The Church, both the Old Testament (Israel) and New Testament (Orthodox) Church, has always had a tendency to embrace ever more of man's technical and artistic culture. Technology is first described as being made by the fallen line of Cain (Gen: 4:22), but certain crafts were eventually embraced by God for his Church (Exod: 25:8--27:19; 30:1--6).

    In the New Testament, Christ Himself implied a distinction between sacred images (icons) and secular images (Mt. 22:15--22; Mk. 12:13--17; Lu. 20:20--26) (see my post here for source). St. Paul explained what makes sacred art sacred--the Orthodox symbolism behind it (Heb. 9). He also accepted music in church (1Co. 14:26).

    But, in post-New-Testament times, there was controversy about both music and art in church. This led, among other things, to the Iconoclast Controversy, but both art and music were eventually accepted throughout the church. However, what began as Hebrew, Greek and Roman art and music were elevated to a new, spiritual level and became Byzantine art and music (and their pre-schism Western and Russian offshoots).

    Now, comics are a modern form of sequential art. This is art that shows a sequence of images which tell a story. It goes all the way back to cave paintings which told the story of a hunt (see my post #287 above). The Orthodox church also embraced sequential art. At the top of every iconostasis there is a sequence of icons depicting the "dodeca'orton" --the twelve great feasts. It is essentially a sequence of images of twelve events in Christ's life--a "comic strip". Also, on some icons we see a large image of the saint in the center, surrounded by smaller images of events from his life--a kind of "comic strip" going around the border. So the Church has already embraced sequential art. The problem is not that Christ and the saints are depicted in comic strip form, but how they are depicted in this form.

    Sometimes, the Church used art and music as weapons to counter heretical propaganda. For example, when Arios and his followers the Arians began to write heretical songs to promote their theology, St. Athanasios practically invented Byzantine hymnography as we know it, as a counter. Given modern comic-book depictions of Christ like the above-mentioned martial-arts scene, perhaps its time for a "Byzantine comic art". The problem now is, how to integrate the modern comic book--whether American, European, or Manga-- into the tradition of Byzantine art. As an example, let's avoid the static poses of Byzantine icon portraits, and look at an "action scene"--St. George and the dragon. The traditional Byzantine depiction (here) is more static and monumental, like an eternal statue carved in stone. The style of a typical modern comic artist (here) is more personal, shown at a closer angle, and more emotion-filled. What we need is to come closer to the Byzantine depiction if we are to see an "Orthodox comic art".
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  16. gurneyhalleck1

    gurneyhalleck1 In the Phantom Zone in exile

    +4,898
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Others
    You do realize this thread is some 3 years old....this dates back to the days when GxG actually liked me!!!! We're talking WAY back!!

     
  17. Kristos

    Kristos Servant

    +767
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Magna Jesus...not a fan.
     
Loading...