OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 05:00:53 PM

Title: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 05:00:53 PM
Not interested in "Legends" (St. Luke's icon that can't be proven), I am interested in the first iconography that was used & venerated by the Christians - that can be proven.

Can anybody cite when God, Yeshua(Jesus), or any of the original apostles used icons, or commanded the use of them?  (Including the Trinity icon, icons with Moses, Daniel, etc.)   

Also, I am not interested in Christian art, such as the fish which was not venerated, or wax sealers.  I'm interested in when they were implemented into the Liturgy and worship practice (veneration) of the Eastern Orthodox church.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: mike on June 15, 2013, 05:07:23 PM
Yesterday, early afternoon.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Arachne on June 15, 2013, 05:17:43 PM
The first icons were painted on the walls of catacombs. Not very well preserved today, but there are traces of several OT scenes, images of Christ and his Mother.

The practice took off after Constantine ended the persecutions, allowing Christians to express their faith openly without hiding behind symbols.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 15, 2013, 05:21:54 PM
Not interested in "Legends" (St. Luke's icon that can't be proven)

What is proof? If someone asks me if the dishes are washed I could show them clean dishes as proof. If you want to proof that someone murdered the victim a positive dna test would suffice. But if you want to verify that a few thousand Greek soldiers fought the Persians at Gaugamela you could point to a passage in Arrian as proof. And yet Arrian wrote centuries after the Battle of Gaugamela. Does that reduce the Battle of Gaugamela to a mere legend which cannot be proven? Should the Battle of Gaugamela be reduced to an ahistoric fiction?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 05:26:52 PM
The first icons were painted on the walls of catacombs. Not very well preserved today, but there are traces of several OT scenes, images of Christ and his Mother.

The practice took off after Constantine ended the persecutions, allowing Christians to express their faith openly without hiding behind symbols.

What years & was there veneration?

The only catacomb art that has dates that I can find were from the mid 4th century.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 15, 2013, 05:27:08 PM
The matter is not about what was early or late in history. But rather what is true in the light of the church. There is no proof of icons besides tradition that dates back before the third century. But take the bible in this sense and it will not stands for long, small and very early manuscripts can´t prove the bible to be uncorrupt, but the church can. Living under persecution for 300 years and under the circumstances they had didn´t make icon first priority to safeguard the truth. But the truth didn´t exclude iconography just because it didn´t exist 20 minutes after the crucifixion.

The question should be one whether it´s true or not, not on dates and proofs. The trinity is really a truth, but didn´t take that explicit expression until 325. Same goes with iconography. If every icon on earth would disappear until year 2100, it wouldn´t make it false in year 3000 when some dude discovered some old icons.

Please forgive me dear brother/sister if i was negative in any way. Been working all day long so please forgive my attitude. Forgive and pray for me.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Arachne on June 15, 2013, 05:31:49 PM
The first icons were painted on the walls of catacombs. Not very well preserved today, but there are traces of several OT scenes, images of Christ and his Mother.

The practice took off after Constantine ended the persecutions, allowing Christians to express their faith openly without hiding behind symbols.

What years & was there veneration?

The only catacomb art that has dates that I can find were from the mid 4th century.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html)

Icons cover every inch of the inside of a church. In your opinion, are they venerated or not?

Catacombs by definition were used in the early years of the church, and preservation of sacred art was not high on people's priorities then. If you need something more specific, you need to find a specialist.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 15, 2013, 05:31:59 PM
This one might help.

http://silouanthompson.net/2008/11/paralytic-dura-europos/
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 05:36:00 PM
The matter is not about what was early or late in history. But rather what is true in the light of the church. There is no proof of icons besides tradition that dates back before the third century. But take the bible in this sense and it will not stands for long, small and very early manuscripts can´t prove the bible to be uncorrupt, but the church can. Living under persecution for 300 years and under the circumstances they had didn´t make icon first priority to safeguard the truth. But the truth didn´t exclude iconography just because it didn´t exist 20 minutes after the crucifixion.

The question should be one whether it´s true or not, not on dates and proofs. The trinity is really a truth, but didn´t take that explicit expression until 325. Same goes with iconography. If every icon on earth would disappear until year 2100, it wouldn´t make it false in year 3000 when some dude discovered some old icons.

Please forgive me dear brother/sister if i was negative in any way. Been working all day long so please forgive my attitude. Forgive and pray for me.

The phrase "trinity" was coined post 325, but the understanding of the trinity existed.


So basically my questions are "I just want proof of very early iconography and veneration".
You answer is "That should not matter because the church says so".

The question exists because iconography usage is absolutely a huge role in EO worship.

(No offense taken btw, religion & politics are touchy issues)

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 05:42:23 PM
This one might help.

http://silouanthompson.net/2008/11/paralytic-dura-europos/

Thanks but not really.  The description on this art fills in gaps that were not existent with the art itself, such as quoting Christ.  Description states: Top center, Christ is saying, “That you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins: rise up, take up your bed and walk.”

If this was Christ, there was no text.

More importantly, this was 200 years after the resurrection.  Very long time after the time of Christ to consider iconography as part of the original Christian church.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 05:44:53 PM
The first icons were painted on the walls of catacombs. Not very well preserved today, but there are traces of several OT scenes, images of Christ and his Mother.

The practice took off after Constantine ended the persecutions, allowing Christians to express their faith openly without hiding behind symbols.

What years & was there veneration?

The only catacomb art that has dates that I can find were from the mid 4th century.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html)

Icons cover every inch of the inside of a church. In your opinion, are they venerated or not?

Catacombs by definition were used in the early years of the church, and preservation of sacred art was not high on people's priorities then. If you need something more specific, you need to find a specialist.

I know they cover every inch of the church....

Icon artifacts from the 1st Century do not exist, nor are there very early writings about them, nor are they written about in the bible.  Yet they are all over the EO church, which claims to be original Christianity. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 15, 2013, 05:52:48 PM
What i wanted to say was just that the thing that helped me in my journey towards iconography was looking on the truth matter, not history matter. Iconography was coined publicly as the church got so thanks to Constantine, but the understanding was there before, even long way back to the ark of the covenant.

Back in the early church a priest/monk could worship and love God much more just by watching the waves of the sea. If was need icons today, and the church can declare and prove it truthful, then history does not matter.

Forgive me if i point out some examples or questions. But the bible and its content/message can´t withstand the test we many times put forth on iconography. The texts and its entirety was kept through tradition, or else someone need to give me a new testament written 10 years after Christs death for me to believe it. No rather the truth within it is what matters, not where I can find the earliest copy. Same standard goes with it all, including icons.

If the EO worship in 100 years only would consist of prayer, 24 hours a day, among 100% of EO believers. What would the one seeking for 100% praying Christians say when he/she couldn´t find that through history. Is praying 24 hours a day then wrong?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Arachne on June 15, 2013, 05:59:21 PM
Yet they are all over the EO church, which claims to be original Christianity.

Yes, they are. Yes, it is. Your point?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 15, 2013, 06:01:50 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Asteriktos on June 15, 2013, 06:07:06 PM
I know I've given my thoughts on this before, so I tried to do a search for what I had previously written, so as to quote it. I couldn't locate it, however, in the midst of the two dozen or more times you've brought this subject up. Which got me to thinking... perhaps you could go back and look at the hundreds(!) of answers people have previously given you regarding icons?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 15, 2013, 06:07:35 PM
A more serious but necessary challenge could be. Prove me that there was even a church existing in the 1th century.  

"I´m a historian, so your religious, traditional and fairy tale bible is not proof". I want more than that.

Yet we instantly accept as christians the fact that the church existed in the 1th century, not because the historian say yes or no on the matter. But because Christ promised it and he is the truth.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 15, 2013, 06:17:52 PM
Sometimes I think every believer needs to sketch themselves 2 huge cherubim angels, go to the goldsmith, make them in a large size. Put them on their dinner table and say out loud 100 times every day that God accepted this during old testament laws. Everyone would come to accept iconography and not reject it.

It is only when we take the issue of the 2 cherubims on the ark easy, that focus actually disappears from the topic.

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Seraphim98 on June 15, 2013, 07:35:24 PM
The earliest particular reference to icons that I recall are in the writings of the mid 4th century Church historian Eusebius.  He was personally ambivalent about them in private homes, but the manner of his discussion suggests they were well established if not as widely used as they later came to be in the Church. He also mentions the image reputed to have been made by Christ himself and kept in the city of Edessa.

The image of the Holy Mandylion, is based upon the image Christ made on the cloth and sent to the king of  Edessa. Some have suggested that the image as it currently exists was modeled more directly on the image placed upon the door of the chest/box in which the cloth image was kept.

The icons of the Saints derive from Palastinian and Egyptian funerary tradition.  It was the custom to make a portrait of the deceased and attach to the body, and then placed as a kind of grave marker at the crypt where the body was buried. There was a mystical connection that was believed to exist between the image and the deceased person. When the body had decomposed, the bones were gathered and placed in a ossuary and the image went with the bones.  As Christians from the region died both of natural causes and of martyrdom, their images were gathered with their bones as well.  But for martyrs, their bones were brought back into the temples for the veneration of the faithful, and so did their images which were mounted over or near their holy relics.  The idea of a connection between the prototype and the image remained and was refined within the context of Orthodox anthropology and theology with respect to liturgical practice. In short enough time visitors would copy the images of saints found in the temples of the place of their martyrdom and take them back to their temples and so the iconographic tradition of the images of the saints was born.

This particular phase was historically quite important for in it are found a number of the theological arguments for them which were used and refined by later generations.  If you examine such icons of master iconographers closely, one can see how much of the early Egyptian influence still remains, both materially, and in the geometries of the division of space in the plane of the icon. It has long been argued that Orthodox icons are the material and imagistic heirs of the hieroglyphs of the ancient Egyptians…that as icons they are in fact a species of hieroglyph.

With respect to image of Christ and others the interim phase of the 2nd century was marked by coded symbols sometimes drawn from/evocative of Greek mythology. For example, the later icon of Christ Enthroned borrows the seated posture of Zeus as sculpted in one of the major pagan temples of the time). Occasionally one also sees Apollos-like figures that are meant to point to Christ. These are not icons, but they are moving in that direction in that they served metaphorical roles for the faithful. This is the era of the fish symbol and the anchor and all that, but it was also the time of two particular and widespread anthropomorphic figures, one was called the "Orans" the worshiper. It is the figure of a woman with her arms uplifted in prayer. This is the image retained and symbolically enlarges as the icon we see in the apse of most Orthodox temples, the Theotokos with arms upraised and Christ appearing as a child in a mandorla from her bosom. This represents the moment of the incarnation where Christ took on human form in Mary's womb.  The second image is that of the good shepherd where in one sees a man with a flock gathered about him, or a man bearing a sheep upon his shoulders.  This of course references Christ.

What seems pretty certain from the record is that the use of the Cross as a venerable symbol of Christ and the faith happened pretty early…early enough to become a universal Christian symbol from the Mar Thoma Christians of India to the first Breton Churches in what is now Southern England. The other images, of Christ and the Theotokos, and the saints while present from very early days began and remained as a number of what were initially local/regional traditions (like certain feast days) that later gained acceptance throughout the rest of the Church.

As for the use of icons prominently in Church architecture, that was beginning around the time of Eusebius and was well underway by the time of St. John Chrysostom.  What happened was that the edict of toleration removed most to the threat associated with becoming a Christian…and indeed it became fashionable to become a Christian, and to baptize one's children, etc.  So fairly soon…less than a generation after the edict we had temples filled with not only Christians in good standing, but inquirers, catechumens, and lapsed Christians at every stage of repentance…we even had just the idly curious.  And since the end of the persecutions it had become more and more common for the Liturgy of the Word and the Divine Liturgy to be held one after the other at the same place with the same people in attendance.  Prior, when the Deacon has called out "The Doors, the Doors" the only ones left were baptized Christians in good standing. Essentially everyone there communed in the altar (or what would formally become the altar architecturally). That was not possible in the services with crowds in attendance, which meant unworthy eyes were left to gaze upon Holy Things originally belonging only to the knowledge of the faithful. (Holy Things for the Holy). So in order to assist the deaconate in guarding the altar, and still communicate the Holy mystery in ways permissible to the uninitiated, the guard rail of the altar grew into a framework which supported a curtain that could be drawn and pulled back at appropriate places in the service.  In Palestinian lands the embroidery on these early on became very detailed, and often iconographic.  In Greek Churches this curtain is still preserved above the Holy Doors, but the rest of the framework became a lattice, and then later a wall (by 15th century Russia). Upon this lattice/wall images of Christ, the Theotokos, the Forerunner, Archangels or Sainted Deacons, and the icon of the namesake of the temple were placed.  Then were added ranks of feast days, then ranks of prophets and apostles, and so on until the iconostas we know today came into existence.  In western Europe the frame (Roodscreen) never became an iconostasis and retained the function of bearing a curtain. This curtain was generally done away with by the 16th or 17th century under the influence of emerging Protestant sensibilities.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 08:50:34 PM
What i wanted to say was just that the thing that helped me in my journey towards iconography was looking on the truth matter, not history matter. Iconography was coined publicly as the church got so thanks to Constantine, but the understanding was there before, even long way back to the ark of the covenant.

Back in the early church a priest/monk could worship and love God much more just by watching the waves of the sea. If was need icons today, and the church can declare and prove it truthful, then history does not matter.

Forgive me if i point out some examples or questions. But the bible and its content/message can´t withstand the test we many times put forth on iconography. The texts and its entirety was kept through tradition, or else someone need to give me a new testament written 10 years after Christs death for me to believe it. No rather the truth within it is what matters, not where I can find the earliest copy. Same standard goes with it all, including icons.

If the EO worship in 100 years only would consist of prayer, 24 hours a day, among 100% of EO believers. What would the one seeking for 100% praying Christians say when he/she couldn´t find that through history. Is praying 24 hours a day then wrong?

That inlays another problem for another thread.  Constantine.... Yes, St. Constantine - murdered over 200k people AFTER Nicea.  Go check other threads.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 08:51:38 PM
Yet they are all over the EO church, which claims to be original Christianity.

Yes, they are. Yes, it is. Your point?

My point is, icons can't be proven to be part of the original church, yet are a major part of the EO faith.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 08:52:47 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 08:54:19 PM
I know I've given my thoughts on this before, so I tried to do a search for what I had previously written, so as to quote it. I couldn't locate it, however, in the midst of the two dozen or more times you've brought this subject up. Which got me to thinking... perhaps you could go back and look at the hundreds(!) of answers people have previously given you regarding icons?

I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Again, Orthodoxy claims to be original, yet iconography, a huge part of Orthodoxy, was not original Christianity.  I'm simply asking for a good 1st century icon & writings about them.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 08:57:39 PM
The earliest particular reference to icons that I recall are in the writings of the mid 4th century Church historian Eusebius.  He was personally ambivalent about them in private homes, but the manner of his discussion suggests they were well established if not as widely used as they later came to be in the Church. He also mentions the image reputed to have been made by Christ himself and kept in the city of Edessa.

The image of the Holy Mandylion, is based upon the image Christ made on the cloth and sent to the king of  Edessa. Some have suggested that the image as it currently exists was modeled more directly on the image placed upon the door of the chest/box in which the cloth image was kept.

The icons of the Saints derive from Palastinian and Egyptian funerary tradition.  It was the custom to make a portrait of the deceased and attach to the body, and then placed as a kind of grave marker at the crypt where the body was buried. There was a mystical connection that was believed to exist between the image and the deceased person. When the body had decomposed, the bones were gathered and placed in a ossuary and the image went with the bones.  As Christians from the region died both of natural causes and of martyrdom, their images were gathered with their bones as well.  But for martyrs, their bones were brought back into the temples for the veneration of the faithful, and so did their images which were mounted over or near their holy relics.  The idea of a connection between the prototype and the image remained and was refined within the context of Orthodox anthropology and theology with respect to liturgical practice. In short enough time visitors would copy the images of saints found in the temples of the place of their martyrdom and take them back to their temples and so the iconographic tradition of the images of the saints was born.

This particular phase was historically quite important for in it are found a number of the theological arguments for them which were used and refined by later generations.  If you examine such icons of master iconographers closely, one can see how much of the early Egyptian influence still remains, both materially, and in the geometries of the division of space in the plane of the icon. It has long been argued that Orthodox icons are the material and imagistic heirs of the hieroglyphs of the ancient Egyptians…that as icons they are in fact a species of hieroglyph.

With respect to image of Christ and others the interim phase of the 2nd century was marked by coded symbols sometimes drawn from/evocative of Greek mythology. For example, the later icon of Christ Enthroned borrows the seated posture of Zeus as sculpted in one of the major pagan temples of the time). Occasionally one also sees Apollos-like figures that are meant to point to Christ. These are not icons, but they are moving in that direction in that they served metaphorical roles for the faithful. This is the era of the fish symbol and the anchor and all that, but it was also the time of two particular and widespread anthropomorphic figures, one was called the "Orans" the worshiper. It is the figure of a woman with her arms uplifted in prayer. This is the image retained and symbolically enlarges as the icon we see in the apse of most Orthodox temples, the Theotokos with arms upraised and Christ appearing as a child in a mandorla from her bosom. This represents the moment of the incarnation where Christ took on human form in Mary's womb.  The second image is that of the good shepherd where in one sees a man with a flock gathered about him, or a man bearing a sheep upon his shoulders.  This of course references Christ.

What seems pretty certain from the record is that the use of the Cross as a venerable symbol of Christ and the faith happened pretty early…early enough to become a universal Christian symbol from the Mar Thoma Christians of India to the first Breton Churches in what is now Southern England. The other images, of Christ and the Theotokos, and the saints while present from very early days began and remained as a number of what were initially local/regional traditions (like certain feast days) that later gained acceptance throughout the rest of the Church.

As for the use of icons prominently in Church architecture, that was beginning around the time of Eusebius and was well underway by the time of St. John Chrysostom.  What happened was that the edict of toleration removed most to the threat associated with becoming a Christian…and indeed it became fashionable to become a Christian, and to baptize one's children, etc.  So fairly soon…less than a generation after the edict we had temples filled with not only Christians in good standing, but inquirers, catechumens, and lapsed Christians at every stage of repentance…we even had just the idly curious.  And since the end of the persecutions it had become more and more common for the Liturgy of the Word and the Divine Liturgy to be held one after the other at the same place with the same people in attendance.  Prior, when the Deacon has called out "The Doors, the Doors" the only ones left were baptized Christians in good standing. Essentially everyone there communed in the altar (or what would formally become the altar architecturally). That was not possible in the services with crowds in attendance, which meant unworthy eyes were left to gaze upon Holy Things originally belonging only to the knowledge of the faithful. (Holy Things for the Holy). So in order to assist the deaconate in guarding the altar, and still communicate the Holy mystery in ways permissible to the uninitiated, the guard rail of the altar grew into a framework which supported a curtain that could be drawn and pulled back at appropriate places in the service.  In Palestinian lands the embroidery on these early on became very detailed, and often iconographic.  In Greek Churches this curtain is still preserved above the Holy Doors, but the rest of the framework became a lattice, and then later a wall (by 15th century Russia). Upon this lattice/wall images of Christ, the Theotokos, the Forerunner, Archangels or Sainted Deacons, and the icon of the namesake of the temple were placed.  Then were added ranks of feast days, then ranks of prophets and apostles, and so on until the iconostas we know today came into existence.  In western Europe the frame (Roodscreen) never became an iconostasis and retained the function of bearing a curtain. This curtain was generally done away with by the 16th or 17th century under the influence of emerging Protestant sensibilities.

Thank you for at least giving a mature thought out answer.

Lacks examples, but thank you.   I do find it interesting that you are admitting that Christ took the place/poster of Zues, and other Greek art.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 08:58:56 PM
Sometimes I think every believer needs to sketch themselves 2 huge cherubim angels, go to the goldsmith, make them in a large size. Put them on their dinner table and say out loud 100 times every day that God accepted this during old testament laws. Everyone would come to accept iconography and not reject it.

It is only when we take the issue of the 2 cherubims on the ark easy, that focus actually disappears from the topic.



God told them EXACTLY how to make the ark of the covenant.

I'm still looking for egg tempera and halos (Eastern Mysticism).
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on June 15, 2013, 09:50:48 PM
I know I've given my thoughts on this before, so I tried to do a search for what I had previously written, so as to quote it. I couldn't locate it, however, in the midst of the two dozen or more times you've brought this subject up. Which got me to thinking... perhaps you could go back and look at the hundreds(!) of answers people have previously given you regarding icons?

I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Again, Orthodoxy claims to be original, yet iconography, a huge part of Orthodoxy, was not original Christianity.  I'm simply asking for a good 1st century icon & writings about them.

You've never heard of the catacombs?

This is getting embarrassing now. You've been told so many times and you still claim to have never gotten an answer.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Nephi on June 15, 2013, 09:56:21 PM
I know I've given my thoughts on this before, so I tried to do a search for what I had previously written, so as to quote it. I couldn't locate it, however, in the midst of the two dozen or more times you've brought this subject up. Which got me to thinking... perhaps you could go back and look at the hundreds(!) of answers people have previously given you regarding icons?

Lol. He does regurgitate these "questions" like it's nothing, and never actually considers the responses (see how he ignored Cyrllic's post) unless he thinks they confirm his current convictions (see how he responded to Seraphim98's post). He's just looking for an argument, it honestly seems.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: 88Devin12 on June 15, 2013, 09:59:13 PM
I'm not interested in any truth but that which fits into my narrow-minded view of what Early Christianity must have been.

FTFY
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 10:15:29 PM
I know I've given my thoughts on this before, so I tried to do a search for what I had previously written, so as to quote it. I couldn't locate it, however, in the midst of the two dozen or more times you've brought this subject up. Which got me to thinking... perhaps you could go back and look at the hundreds(!) of answers people have previously given you regarding icons?

I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Again, Orthodoxy claims to be original, yet iconography, a huge part of Orthodoxy, was not original Christianity.  I'm simply asking for a good 1st century icon & writings about them.

You've never heard of the catacombs?

This is getting embarrassing now. You've been told so many times and you still claim to have never gotten an answer.

Biro, you did not read the thread at all.  It has been mentioned and discussed.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 10:16:46 PM
Not interested in "Legends" (St. Luke's icon that can't be proven)

What is proof? If someone asks me if the dishes are washed I could show them clean dishes as proof. If you want to proof that someone murdered the victim a positive dna test would suffice. But if you want to verify that a few thousand Greek soldiers fought the Persians at Gaugamela you could point to a passage in Arrian as proof. And yet Arrian wrote centuries after the Battle of Gaugamela. Does that reduce the Battle of Gaugamela to a mere legend which cannot be proven? Should the Battle of Gaugamela be reduced to an ahistoric fiction?


Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
I know I've given my thoughts on this before, so I tried to do a search for what I had previously written, so as to quote it. I couldn't locate it, however, in the midst of the two dozen or more times you've brought this subject up. Which got me to thinking... perhaps you could go back and look at the hundreds(!) of answers people have previously given you regarding icons?

Lol. He does regurgitate these "questions" like it's nothing, and never actually considers the responses (see how he ignored Cyrllic's post) unless he thinks they confirm his current convictions (see how he responded to Seraphim98's post). He's just looking for an argument, it honestly seems.


I didn't ignore it, I thought it was already discussed.  I want to see an icon from the 1st century or writings about them in the 1st century, or at least VERY early 2nd century.

Obviously many texts survive, but nothing about icons.
Seraphim98's post mostly had reasons to flee from iconography, and also not citing his sources.  Such as "crosses were venerable".   Don't believe that length fully states point. 

I asked for simple proof.  Where is it?  Venerated icons, or writings about venerated icons in the 1st century.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 10:21:08 PM
I'm not interested in any truth but that which fits into my narrow-minded view of what Early Christianity must have been.

FTFY

Thou shalt not bear false witness to thy neighbor.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 15, 2013, 10:44:32 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it's not true.   ;)

There may well be examples of icons from the first century, I don't know one way or another.  But even if there weren't any, I wouldn't think too much of it.  Given that they were too busy living and propagating a faith that was quickly deemed illegal and punishable by persecution and death, I wouldn't expect very many of them to take the time to paint pretty pictures.  Heck, I'm glad they left us with the New Testament, can you imagine if we only had the OT to work from?  We could still preach the gospel with only the OT, but how much more difficult would it be? 

The Cross did become a symbol of Christianity early on.  St Thomas is said to have carved one in stone while in India, and it was this Cross which he held on to as he was dying.  If I'm not mistaken, it still exists, and has been known to perform miracles (meaning both that people who pray before and venerate it have received miracles from God through the Apostle's intercession and that wonders have been exhibited by the Cross, such as the miraculous flowing of blood, which happened on the anniversary of his death every year until the 1700's).  The style of Cross he carved has become the prototype for most traditional Indian crosses. 

Seraphim, where can I read more about the relation of iconography to Palestian/Egyptian funerary tradition?  I've never heard of that before, but it was quite fascinating. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on June 15, 2013, 10:44:40 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Can you point to a surviving manuscript from the New Testament from the first century? I don't think any manuscripts have survived from that period either.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 10:49:00 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it's not true.   ;)

There may well be examples of icons from the first century, I don't know one way or another.  But even if there weren't any, I wouldn't think too much of it.  Given that they were too busy living and propagating a faith that was quickly deemed illegal and punishable by persecution and death, I wouldn't expect very many of them to take the time to paint pretty pictures.  Heck, I'm glad they left us with the New Testament, can you imagine if we only had the OT to work from?  We could still preach the gospel with only the OT, but how much more difficult would it be? 

The Cross did become a symbol of Christianity early on.  St Thomas is said to have carved one in stone while in India, and it was this Cross which he held on to as he was dying.  If I'm not mistaken, it still exists, and has been known to perform miracles (meaning both that people who pray before and venerate it have received miracles from God through the Apostle's intercession and that wonders have been exhibited by the Cross, such as the miraculous flowing of blood, which happened on the anniversary of his death every year until the 1700's).  The style of Cross he carved has become the prototype for most traditional Indian crosses. 

Seraphim, where can I read more about the relation of iconography to Palestian/Egyptian funerary tradition?  I've never heard of that before, but it was quite fascinating. 

Agree completely about the internet.  I'm willing to travel.  :)

So the cross performed miracles means that people venerated it?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 10:53:21 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Can you point to a surviving manuscript from the New Testament from the first century? I don't think any manuscripts have survived from that period either.

Fair enough.  Paper & paintings have different longevity.... 
Also of course the text was copied, none of which mentioned icons.  :-\
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 15, 2013, 10:57:26 PM
What i wanted to say was just that the thing that helped me in my journey towards iconography was looking on the truth matter, not history matter. Iconography was coined publicly as the church got so thanks to Constantine, but the understanding was there before, even long way back to the ark of the covenant.

Back in the early church a priest/monk could worship and love God much more just by watching the waves of the sea. If was need icons today, and the church can declare and prove it truthful, then history does not matter.

Forgive me if i point out some examples or questions. But the bible and its content/message can´t withstand the test we many times put forth on iconography. The texts and its entirety was kept through tradition, or else someone need to give me a new testament written 10 years after Christs death for me to believe it. No rather the truth within it is what matters, not where I can find the earliest copy. Same standard goes with it all, including icons.

If the EO worship in 100 years only would consist of prayer, 24 hours a day, among 100% of EO believers. What would the one seeking for 100% praying Christians say when he/she couldn´t find that through history. Is praying 24 hours a day then wrong?

That inlays another problem for another thread.  Constantine.... Yes, St. Constantine - murdered over 200k people AFTER Nicea.  Go check other threads.

And you keep killing that poor dead horse. How can you expect to be a saint?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 15, 2013, 10:57:59 PM
Yet they are all over the EO church, which claims to be original Christianity.

Yes, they are. Yes, it is. Your point?

My point is, icons can't be proven to be part of the original church, yet are a major part of the EO faith.

You ask for proof like an atheist.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 15, 2013, 11:00:45 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.

Many, many things were not written about. St. Paul mentions this when he tells the people to hold to what he has taught in his epistles and by his words. Or do you imagine he only communicated in writing, even when he writes that for a long time he pleaded with people, warning them that heretics would appear who would say things like "God should not be depicted in holy icons."
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 11:02:00 PM
What i wanted to say was just that the thing that helped me in my journey towards iconography was looking on the truth matter, not history matter. Iconography was coined publicly as the church got so thanks to Constantine, but the understanding was there before, even long way back to the ark of the covenant.

Back in the early church a priest/monk could worship and love God much more just by watching the waves of the sea. If was need icons today, and the church can declare and prove it truthful, then history does not matter.

Forgive me if i point out some examples or questions. But the bible and its content/message can´t withstand the test we many times put forth on iconography. The texts and its entirety was kept through tradition, or else someone need to give me a new testament written 10 years after Christs death for me to believe it. No rather the truth within it is what matters, not where I can find the earliest copy. Same standard goes with it all, including icons.

If the EO worship in 100 years only would consist of prayer, 24 hours a day, among 100% of EO believers. What would the one seeking for 100% praying Christians say when he/she couldn´t find that through history. Is praying 24 hours a day then wrong?

That inlays another problem for another thread.  Constantine.... Yes, St. Constantine - murdered over 200k people AFTER Nicea.  Go check other threads.

And you keep killing that poor dead horse. How can you expect to be a saint?

Hey if a man who kills 200k people after his conversion to Christianity can be venerated on put on an iconostasis.......   Oh nevermind.  :P
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 15, 2013, 11:03:01 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Can you point to a surviving manuscript from the New Testament from the first century? I don't think any manuscripts have survived from that period either.

Bazinga!
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 15, 2013, 11:04:45 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Can you point to a surviving manuscript from the New Testament from the first century? I don't think any manuscripts have survived from that period either.

Fair enough.  Paper & paintings have different longevity.... 
Also of course the text was copied, none of which mentioned icons.  :-\

Sure. If you say it enough, you will more and more convince yourself not to repent.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 11:06:17 PM
Yet they are all over the EO church, which claims to be original Christianity.

Yes, they are. Yes, it is. Your point?

My point is, icons can't be proven to be part of the original church, yet are a major part of the EO faith.

You ask for proof like an atheist.

I'm sorry it must seem that way, but this involves Christianity in the context of historical proof within a church claiming originality.  

I say icons were not part of the earliest church at all, as I have never been able to find a record or writing of them from early on.   I've searched so many early writings.. Nothing.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Can you point to a surviving manuscript from the New Testament from the first century? I don't think any manuscripts have survived from that period either.

Fair enough.  Paper & paintings have different longevity.... 
Also of course the text was copied, none of which mentioned icons.  :-\

Sure. If you say it enough, you will more and more convince yourself not to repent.

You mean in front of an icon?  Kind of circular.   I'm actually looking for clear cut sources.  Look if I'm wrong, I'm wrong... I can accept that.  But I can't accept icons as original until I see something.  If I ever rejoin the EO church, I must have clarification on things.  I can't just "venerate", and go on, when I feel it is sinful.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 11:19:00 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.

Many, many things were not written about. St. Paul mentions this when he tells the people to hold to what he has taught in his epistles and by his words. Or do you imagine he only communicated in writing, even when he writes that for a long time he pleaded with people, warning them that heretics would appear who would say things like "God should not be depicted in holy icons."

I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God
(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

So let's see:
1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.  Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.  

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 15, 2013, 11:22:00 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.

Many, many things were not written about. St. Paul mentions this when he tells the people to hold to what he has taught in his epistles and by his words. Or do you imagine he only communicated in writing, even when he writes that for a long time he pleaded with people, warning them that heretics would appear who would say things like "God should not be depicted in holy icons."

I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God
(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

So let's see:
1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.  Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.  

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?



Do you really think your tired iconoclastic arguments were not brought up by your predecessors and refuted? Anyway, have fun reassuring yourself.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Nephi on June 15, 2013, 11:26:48 PM
I say icons were not part of the earliest church at all, as I have never been able to find a record or writing of them from early on.   I've searched so many early writings.. Nothing.

How do you define "earliest church?" Your likely answer, combined with the implied assumption that the "earliest church" is the criterion of faith, would cause problems as even if one were to grant that icons weren't part of the "earliest church," other things like the completed New Testament itself wouldn't be part of the "earliest church." Since hey, no writings saying these 27 works are the dogmatic compilation of post-OT Scripture are found from time of the apostles. Right?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 11:28:20 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.

Many, many things were not written about. St. Paul mentions this when he tells the people to hold to what he has taught in his epistles and by his words. Or do you imagine he only communicated in writing, even when he writes that for a long time he pleaded with people, warning them that heretics would appear who would say things like "God should not be depicted in holy icons."

I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God
(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

So let's see:
1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.  Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.  

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?



Do you really think your tired iconoclastic arguments were not brought up by your predecessors and refuted? Anyway, have fun reassuring yourself.

Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

I'm not an iconoclast by the way, I just would not use them in worship or bring them in my home.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 15, 2013, 11:29:29 PM
This one might help.

http://silouanthompson.net/2008/11/paralytic-dura-europos/

The problem with that is no one really knows whose church the one in Dura-Europos was. For all anyone can really claim, it might've been a gnostic sect.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 15, 2013, 11:29:51 PM
I say icons were not part of the earliest church at all, as I have never been able to find a record or writing of them from early on.   I've searched so many early writings.. Nothing.

How do you define "earliest church?" Your likely answer, combined with the implied assumption that the "earliest church" is the criterion of faith, would cause problems as even if one were to grant that icons weren't part of the "earliest church," other things like the completed New Testament itself wouldn't be part of the "earliest church." Since hey, no writings saying these 27 works are the dogmatic compilation of post-OT Scripture are found from time of the apostles. Right?

I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 15, 2013, 11:36:25 PM
So the cross performed miracles means that people venerated it?

I don't know which came first.  I presume that people venerated the Cross because it was the Cross, but also because it was closely associated with the ministry and martyrdom of St Thomas.  But it was considered miraculous pretty early on.  Did that feed the veneration?  Sure.  Did that start it?  I can't say. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on June 15, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
There's no need to attack the guy. I don't think there's necessarily any evidence of icon veneration in the way we practice it today in the first century. That doesn't bother me, because a lot of things were in their infancy in that period. But it does bother him. It's a dangerous thing to ask someone to violate their conscience.

I would assume that there were likely depictions on frescoes on the walls, but I doubt people showed acts of reverence to them. They were just up on SOME of the walls in SOME regions.

I'm at peace with icon veneration and think that our faith affirms it as a practice. But my gauge on what is acceptable is based on different criteria than his. He really seems to think that it needs to have been taught by the apostles and passed on. I really can't say that I believe iconography was a part of the initial preaching and teaching. I may be wrong, but it seems like it's a developed teaching that necessarily grows out of the apostolic deposit and is consistent with it.

Almost all Christians employ imagery quite naturally and without concern. Evangelicals illustrate their bibles and sometimes have portraits of Christ in their home. There is no fundamental issue with depictions of biblical figures and scenes, Christians saints of the past, etc. Even Syriacs who are not known for imagery usually have some kind of illustrations, such as on their gospel books, even if the walls aren't covered in them. Non-Orthodox Christians seems to get suspicious and weirded out when there's talk of actually kissing a painting or bowing in front of it.

I personally think that the early Christians had paintings on the walls in Rome and some other places, and that this gradually spread. The idea of visually seeing the departed saints on the walls and asking for their prayers seems to go to the earliest times to me. The issue of veneration of images seems to come as a response to iconoclasm which sought to banish all imagery. After the long battles people began to increase physical reverence in the East to physically affirm their support of imagery in the Christian experience.

I've honestly never gotten the impression that people were adoring the images as God or as a manifestation of God Himself. It's about honoring the person depicted. I also bow to other congregants at appropriate times during services, and liturgically there is the kiss of peace between brethren, which is mentioned in scripture. So bowing and kissing others as signs of respect and affection is perfectly natural and appropriate. It's just an extension of this to the persons depicted in the paintings. It's the same honor I show to the other congregants, only it's intensified in that these images depict persons whose holiness far exceeds our own.

Probably nothing new for you, but just some honest reflections and arrangement of thoughts. Maybe something was helpful? I hope you find your peace.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 15, 2013, 11:45:21 PM
There's no need to attack the guy. I don't think there's necessarily any evidence of icon veneration in the way we practice it today in the first century. That doesn't bother me, because a lot of things were in their infancy in that period. But it does bother him. It's a dangerous thing to ask someone to violate their conscience.

Quite a bit better than the "Let them who do not venerate the holy and venerable images be anathema!" response... heck, I still have icons but having to believe that is the real issue for me.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: William on June 16, 2013, 12:03:44 AM
I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 16, 2013, 12:21:09 AM
When was the idea of Christ introduced and can it be proven?  I don't want legends from the so-called gospels or later additions to Josephus or made-up tradition.  DNA evidence is preferable.  If you have videotapes of any of his miracles, that would help me out too.  I also accept live-streaming of any of his sermons. Also, it might help me out if we could get Jesus' thoughts on calling His mom the Theotokos, anybody have any recordings on that?  ::)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on June 16, 2013, 12:55:53 AM
When was the idea of Christ introduced and can it be proven?  I don't want legends from the so-called gospels or later additions to Josephus or made-up tradition.  DNA evidence is preferable.  If you have videotapes of any of his miracles, that would help me out too.  I also accept live-streaming of any of his sermons. Also, it might help me out if we could get Jesus' thoughts on calling His mom the Theotokos, anybody have any recordings on that?  ::)

I'm usually all for mocking as a way to get a point across, but in this case it seems like he has serious questions and really wants to be able to be Orthodox. There is nothing wrong asking for reasonable evidence to back the claim that icon painting comes directly from Christ and the apostles. I would claim no such thing. But maybe I'm wrong in that. If it needs to be proven as true and we have enough historical evidence to verify other practices, it seems reasonable to be able to provide some evidence for this. I think that the framework is there for imagery in worship settings in the temple and at early Christian gathering sites, but he seems to want evidence of people bowing before and kissing images in the early centuries. I personally don't think anyone's gonna find it because I don't think anyone was doing it.

Paintings on the walls? Sure. An occasional statue of Christ? Sure. Sign of the cross and bowing? Sure. Sign of the cross and bowing before an image of the cross? Maybe. Bowing before and kissing a painting? Maybe but probably not. But who knows, maybe St. Luke was really busy painting icons and whatever, I just really don't think that seems true. No big deal though. I'll kiss an icon without issue.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Romaios on June 16, 2013, 01:18:23 AM
There is the tradition of the acheiropoieta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheiropoieta) (icons "made without hand"), like the Mandylion of Edessa, the veil of Veronica or the shroud.     

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: NicholasMyra on June 16, 2013, 02:31:36 AM
When were icons first introduced & can be proven?

Genesis 1:26
Genesis 3:24
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Ansgar on June 16, 2013, 02:54:06 AM
There are the Dura-Europos Church which is from the think century. I also find this interesting (without being able to say anything about it's Scientific value:
Quote
A general assumption that Early Christianity was generally aniconic, opposed to religious imagery in both theory and practice, has been challenged by Paul Corby Finney's analysis of Early Christian writing and material remains (1994). This distinguishes three different sources of attitudes affecting Early Christians on the issue: "first that humans could have a direct vision of God; second that they could not; and, third, that although humans could see God they were best advised not to look, and were strictly forbidden to represent what they had seen". These derived respectively from Greek and Near Eastern pagan religions, from Ancient Greek philosophy, and from the Jewish tradition and the Old Testament. Of the three, Finney concludes that "overall, Israel's aversion to sacred images influenced early Christianity considerably less than the Greek philosophical tradition of invisible deity apophatically defined", so placing less emphasis on the Jewish background of most of the first Christians than most traditional accounts.[8] Finney suggests that "the reasons for the non-appearance of Christian art before 200 have nothing to do with principled aversion to art, with other-worldliness, or with anti-materialism. The truth is simple and mundane: Christians lacked land and capital. Art requires both. As soon as they began to acquire land and capital, Christians began to experiment with their own distinctive forms of art".[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 16, 2013, 05:38:05 AM
What i wanted to say was just that the thing that helped me in my journey towards iconography was looking on the truth matter, not history matter. Iconography was coined publicly as the church got so thanks to Constantine, but the understanding was there before, even long way back to the ark of the covenant.

Back in the early church a priest/monk could worship and love God much more just by watching the waves of the sea. If was need icons today, and the church can declare and prove it truthful, then history does not matter.

Forgive me if i point out some examples or questions. But the bible and its content/message can´t withstand the test we many times put forth on iconography. The texts and its entirety was kept through tradition, or else someone need to give me a new testament written 10 years after Christs death for me to believe it. No rather the truth within it is what matters, not where I can find the earliest copy. Same standard goes with it all, including icons.

If the EO worship in 100 years only would consist of prayer, 24 hours a day, among 100% of EO believers. What would the one seeking for 100% praying Christians say when he/she couldn´t find that through history. Is praying 24 hours a day then wrong?

That inlays another problem for another thread.  Constantine.... Yes, St. Constantine - murdered over 200k people AFTER Nicea.  Go check other threads.

And you keep killing that poor dead horse. How can you expect to be a saint?

Hey if a man who kills 200k people after his conversion to Christianity can be venerated on put on an iconostasis.......   Oh nevermind.  :P

200.000? I find that hard to believe.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 16, 2013, 08:33:16 AM
Skepticism is a way of urging for truth, keep your energy up yeshuaisiam, God will provide answer. I hope you´re ready to accept them in the end. When you posted the 2nd commandment and your interpretation, which you have no basis to even provide, then I see your standpoint.

Don´t just use that to condemn all the prophets and Gods holy ones who lived before Christ. As I couldn´t consider church tradition in answering your question and concern about iconography,  so you couldn´t answer my question with the criteria I had.

I state again with great love and respect. What would someone do when he/she couldn´t find any historical record of Christians before the 5th century who prayed 24 hours a day? Without stopping. The person seeking wouldn´t at least conclude that it is something wrong with praying 24 hours a day. Truth is outside time and space, so you need no "proof" to an early icon, we all need to realize why it is not heretical but truthful to venerate the icons.

If you mean that "original" Christianity is something that has to be early, and not proven with traditions. Then you would need to drop the canonical scriptures and not take from the orthodox church what they mainly kept through writings AND tradition.

The disciple John wrote this:
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Just because thing were not written down doesn´t mean that they were "lost". Masturbation and abortion are things not explained through the holy scriptures. Were therefore "original" Christianity positive about masturbating and doing abortions? No, the church always said and will always say NO through the tradition of the church. That´s because the truth stands truthful without "early" proof. Same standard goes with everything.

People can´t assert that Orthodox christians violate the 2d commandment based on their own interpretation, as if someone can take the "church role" and play the game "I´m the true theologian" on people.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on June 16, 2013, 08:36:47 AM
I never though I'd say this, but paging Dr. Isa, we have another one who didn't read the thread with Alfred Persson...  ::)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 16, 2013, 08:52:44 AM
Quote
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

I'm not an iconoclast by the way, I just would not use them in worship or bring them in my home.

I would say that the struggle here is not that we don´t want to help our brother yeshuaisiam on the matter. I think it becomes a problem when someone states a question and already decided the true answer before even reading some responds.

In other words, we will help you dear brother. But we hope that if you find the ark of the covenant out in the wilderness one day. Bring it home to you with great respect and reverence, and not as if it was a ordinary table for you to make sandwiches on  ^^
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: mike on June 16, 2013, 09:34:00 AM
The issue of veneration of images seems to come as a response to iconoclasm which sought to banish all imagery. After the long battles people began to increase physical reverence in the East to physically affirm their support of imagery in the Christian experience.

Actually iconoclasm was a responce to the wrong overveneration of icons so icon veneration must had started before it.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: genesisone on June 16, 2013, 02:51:42 PM
Really, all we have to do is look inside a Christian church building that was constructed for that purpose in the first century.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 16, 2013, 03:09:12 PM
Really, all we have to do is look inside a Christian church building that was constructed for that purpose in the first century.

Time to dust off my time machine.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 16, 2013, 03:12:26 PM
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check

According to your weird interpretation a drawing of a bird would be a violation of the first commendment.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 16, 2013, 05:05:32 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.

Many, many things were not written about. St. Paul mentions this when he tells the people to hold to what he has taught in his epistles and by his words. Or do you imagine he only communicated in writing, even when he writes that for a long time he pleaded with people, warning them that heretics would appear who would say things like "God should not be depicted in holy icons."

I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God
(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

So let's see:
1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.  Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.  

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?



Do you really think your tired iconoclastic arguments were not brought up by your predecessors and refuted? Anyway, have fun reassuring yourself.

Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

I'm not an iconoclast by the way, I just would not use them in worship or bring them in my home.

To my knowledge, the iconoclasts were not murdered. And you don't have to smash an icon to be considered an iconoclast. Believing them to be idols as you do is enough.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 16, 2013, 05:18:30 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Dpaula on June 16, 2013, 07:07:21 PM


I believe the only reason there's no writings, nor a so-called "proof" of having them, is that people still had the image of our Lord Jesus Christ in their minds during that 1st century. As that generation started to perish, I believe a need was born to preserve the memory of the image of Jesus and all the important events of those times.

I have no photo of my grand-grand-grand-grand father....and I wish I had one. Nobody in my family doesn't know how he looked like, not even a simple description of him. I lost my father 4 years ago, but I have photos of him to keep his image alive. I hope my grand-grand-grand children will have a photo of me.
I would feel so lonely without my photos and my icons.

And to be clear...I'm not venerating the material those icons are made of, like we are being accused of doing. When I look at an icon I see the person depicted in that icon. I see Jesus, Himself. How wonderful is this? If not for icons, we will have no clue how Jesus looked like. What other proof do people need to understand how important icons are?

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 16, 2013, 10:00:37 PM
When was the idea of Christ introduced and can it be proven?  I don't want legends from the so-called gospels or later additions to Josephus or made-up tradition.  DNA evidence is preferable.  If you have videotapes of any of his miracles, that would help me out too.  I also accept live-streaming of any of his sermons. Also, it might help me out if we could get Jesus' thoughts on calling His mom the Theotokos, anybody have any recordings on that?  ::)

I know you are poking at me, but I was willing to accept writings about icon veneration.   That is fair.  Unfortunately, there are no writings that I can find.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 16, 2013, 10:01:48 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 16, 2013, 10:03:07 PM


I believe the only reason there's no writings, nor a so-called "proof" of having them, is that people still had the image of our Lord Jesus Christ in their minds during that 1st century. As that generation started to perish, I believe a need was born to preserve the memory of the image of Jesus and all the important events of those times.

I have no photo of my grand-grand-grand-grand father....and I wish I had one. Nobody in my family doesn't know how he looked like, not even a simple description of him. I lost my father 4 years ago, but I have photos of him to keep his image alive. I hope my grand-grand-grand children will have a photo of me.
I would feel so lonely without my photos and my icons.

And to be clear...I'm not venerating the material those icons are made of, like we are being accused of doing. When I look at an icon I see the person depicted in that icon. I see Jesus, Himself. How wonderful is this? If not for icons, we will have no clue how Jesus looked like. What other proof do people need to understand how important icons are?



I understand this logic, but there are icons of David, Moses, etc., and those who existed thousands of years before God became man.  Icons were not used with them, nor venerated.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 16, 2013, 10:05:26 PM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.

Many, many things were not written about. St. Paul mentions this when he tells the people to hold to what he has taught in his epistles and by his words. Or do you imagine he only communicated in writing, even when he writes that for a long time he pleaded with people, warning them that heretics would appear who would say things like "God should not be depicted in holy icons."

I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God
(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

So let's see:
1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.  Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.  

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?



Do you really think your tired iconoclastic arguments were not brought up by your predecessors and refuted? Anyway, have fun reassuring yourself.

Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

I'm not an iconoclast by the way, I just would not use them in worship or bring them in my home.

To my knowledge, the iconoclasts were not murdered. And you don't have to smash an icon to be considered an iconoclast. Believing them to be idols as you do is enough.

Not all iconoclasts were murdered, but iconodules did murder some iconoclast groups.   I do believe that icons are similar to idols, although with a twist.   All things considered, the photo I posted is pretty compelling.  If you really look at what is going on, consider the early Christians DID NOT do this, and consider the "propaganda" promoted for icon usage, candles in front of them, it's pretty rough...
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Iconodule on June 16, 2013, 10:08:00 PM
There's no need to attack the guy. I don't think there's necessarily any evidence of icon veneration in the way we practice it today in the first century. That doesn't bother me, because a lot of things were in their infancy in that period. But it does bother him. It's a dangerous thing to ask someone to violate their conscience.

I would assume that there were likely depictions on frescoes on the walls, but I doubt people showed acts of reverence to them. They were just up on SOME of the walls in SOME regions.

I'm at peace with icon veneration and think that our faith affirms it as a practice. But my gauge on what is acceptable is based on different criteria than his. He really seems to think that it needs to have been taught by the apostles and passed on. I really can't say that I believe iconography was a part of the initial preaching and teaching. I may be wrong, but it seems like it's a developed teaching that necessarily grows out of the apostolic deposit and is consistent with it.

Almost all Christians employ imagery quite naturally and without concern. Evangelicals illustrate their bibles and sometimes have portraits of Christ in their home. There is no fundamental issue with depictions of biblical figures and scenes, Christians saints of the past, etc. Even Syriacs who are not known for imagery usually have some kind of illustrations, such as on their gospel books, even if the walls aren't covered in them. Non-Orthodox Christians seems to get suspicious and weirded out when there's talk of actually kissing a painting or bowing in front of it.

I personally think that the early Christians had paintings on the walls in Rome and some other places, and that this gradually spread. The idea of visually seeing the departed saints on the walls and asking for their prayers seems to go to the earliest times to me. The issue of veneration of images seems to come as a response to iconoclasm which sought to banish all imagery. After the long battles people began to increase physical reverence in the East to physically affirm their support of imagery in the Christian experience.

I've honestly never gotten the impression that people were adoring the images as God or as a manifestation of God Himself. It's about honoring the person depicted. I also bow to other congregants at appropriate times during services, and liturgically there is the kiss of peace between brethren, which is mentioned in scripture. So bowing and kissing others as signs of respect and affection is perfectly natural and appropriate. It's just an extension of this to the persons depicted in the paintings. It's the same honor I show to the other congregants, only it's intensified in that these images depict persons whose holiness far exceeds our own.

Probably nothing new for you, but just some honest reflections and arrangement of thoughts. Maybe something was helpful? I hope you find your peace.

This is how I feel about the question as well.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 16, 2013, 10:21:26 PM
I agree with Alveus.  You really can't take icon veneration as executed today and find it in the first century.  Most likely, when churches were built or buildings were converted into churches, there was some religious art employed in adorning the space.  Eventually, people began to look at them not simply as decoration or as "books for the illiterate", but as aids to prayer, helping them connect with those depicted...at this point, "veneration" is born, even if it took different forms from what we're used to.  When this becomes controversial and iconoclasts and iconodules fight it out, the latter win, and both the theology and the praxis become essential in affirming the reality of the Incarnation.  But even this holds most specifically for the Chalcedonians: the non-Chalcedonians didn't really have an issue with icons, and so to this day you'll see varying practices, with Coptic churches that look pretty much like Byzantine churches, and Syriac churches with many, few, or even no icons (the focus always being the altar, the Cross, and the Gospel), but no one has any doubts re: the Incarnation.  

But I object to the idea that if something doesn't originate in the first century, it's an illegitimate innovation.  Even if the canonical books of the NT were from the first century, the canon itself wasn't established till much later.  In spite of the fact that everyone basically agrees on the 27 books of the NT commonly accepted as canonical Scripture, technically, the NT canon is an open question (e.g., in a catechetical work for the Orthodox in India, St Dionysius Vattaseril lists the books of the NT canon--Revelation is not included, but two epistles of St Clement appear in the list).  

More importantly, however, Christianity is not something you can investigate in impartial sources, reconstruct what the first generation of Christian movement(s) looked like, and re-create that today.  There is no Christianity apart from the Church, the Body of Christ: the Church is a living, breathing, growing thing.  You're not a human being if and only if you maintain those ideas and behaviours which pertained to you between the ages of 0-12 months.  That's foolishness.  So is trying to re-create some "pristine" Christianity...it's an ideology, but it's not what Christ founded on the Rock of St Peter's confession.        
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Seraphim98 on June 16, 2013, 11:30:37 PM
Just sort of shotgunning here are a number of responses:

(1) 1st. Century Images: Given the stretches of time involved the survival of such artifacts to this day are unlikely, though not impossible.  There are at least 4 or 5 images of the Theotokos that are reputed to be originals from the hand of St. Luke.  Be that as it may, as ancient as these images are they bear the marks of numerous touch ups and repairs across the centuries…so ascertaining the how much of the original work is left may not be possible.
 
We must also bear in mind the ravages of the iconoclasts. We have no way of knowing how much from the most ancient times they destroyed, or how much of that deposit was later destroyed under the rule of image hating Islamists.  

That said there are a few documents that bear witness to some very ancient images that were known to the authors of these accounts. In the History of the Church compiled by Eusebius he recounts seeing with his own eyes the double bronzes images set upon the gate posts of the house of the woman healed of the issue of blood. One was of a woman kneeling in posture of supplication, the other was of a man with the features of Jesus, wearing a double cloak about his shoulders and with his hand extended towards the woman supplicant.  This set of images was reputedly raised by the healed woman herself. (Book 7 chapter 18).

Eusebius said he had also seen old images/portraits of Christ and of Sts. Peter and Paul. Given that Eusebius was an active Bishop in the early 4th century, that would strongly suggest at a minimum the images he had seen belonged to the third century if not sooner. St. Gregory of Nyssa, also from the early to mid 4th century mentions very moving representations of the Passion of Christ and the Sacrifice of Issac.

As to the sign of the cross, here is a passage from Tertullian from the 2nd Century:
Quote
"Caro abluitur ut anima maculetur; caro ungitur ut anima consecretur; caro signatur ut et anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur ut et anima de Deo saginetur" (The flesh is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed [with the cross], that the soul, too, may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may have its fill of God — "Deres. Carnis.", viii). (from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm)
From the same source:
Quote
The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezekiel 9:4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Apocalypse 7:3, 9:4 and 14:1. Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects — already Tertullian speaks of the Christian woman "signing" her bed (cum lectulum tuum signas, "Ad uxor.", ii, 5) before retiring to rest—and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on the lips (Jerome, "Epitaph. Paulæ") and on the heart (Prudentius, "Cathem.", vi, 129). Not unnaturally if the object were more remote, the cross which was directed towards it had to be made in the air.

2. The origin of icons of the saints and martyrs in Egyptian funerary customs: There are a number of reference works on the history of iconography that mention this. One of note is Iconostasis by St. Pavel Florensky, the physicist, iconographer and martyr of the early 20th century. One may see examples of the early types of these portraits in encaustic in the Fayoum images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits

3.
Quote
Bible and Image: So let's see:
1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.  Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.  

Let's examine your argument: No first century proof. Well, if you read above some proof is provided from the time of Eusebius that 1st century images existed. Granted the particular 1st century image he mentions was a statue and while it was cherished by the Christian community of his time, there is no particular reference to it's veneration or of it being treated like icons came to be treated in the Church. Historically, I believe the last mention of these bronzes was in the 6th century. Still, it establishes that images of Christ were known in the Church of the 1st Century…not that such a thing should matter too much. The mention of portraits of Christ known to Eusebius and to St. Gregory put the use of flat images/portraits easily within the 3rd century, and strongly suggests they these must rest on earlier 1st century models….that was not the sort of thing honest Christians would just make up or other honest Christians take up unless such things had roots in Apostolic times.  The reason such an assertion can be made is because it was these same men in the 4th century testifying of images in the Church who were responsible for compiling the Scriptures of the New Testament and joining them with the other attested works of the Old Testament as Scripture for the Church?

Where did the Lord ever give the command that any of His Apostles should compose narrations of His life and Crucifixion and Resurrection? Where did the Lord or the 12 ever command that the Letters of St. Paul or any of their own letters should be collected and compiled together with the Gospel accounts as new Scripture for Christians. Nowhere. So how did these writings become Scripture? They were preserved in the churches for whom and to whom they were first written. They were treasured, shared, copied and passed from one Church to the other….this is enough to grant they were very inspirational writings, but by what authority were they edited here and there to stitch in missing bits of the respective apostolic tradition (like the end of the Gospel of St. Mark), and by what authority were they raised to the level of and used in the Churches as Scripture? It can only be the authority of the Church itself, which is the Bride of Christ, the Church of whom St. Paul says that it is the pillar and foundation of all truth; the same church that he directs to keep both the written and the unwritten tradition in his epistles.  

If that God given, God ordained authority is sufficient to establish the authority and use of NT Scripture in the Church for it's teaching and edification, then why is it somehow insufficient to establish the use of images to teach the same things in line and colors as it did in words scribed in pen and ink? You cannot accept the testimony of the Scriptures and at the same time refuse icons, for it is the same Church working by the same Holy Spirit given authority that gives us them both.

It does not matter than no first century evidence of icons remains anymore than it matters that no first century autographs of the Gospels remain. The form the Scriptures had attained by the 3rd and 4th centuries when authoritative collections were listed and gathered to counter the false writings of the heretics…that is the form that matters most, for that is the form that gives us the present text of our New Testament Scriptures.  The various local image traditions of the first generations of the Church matter mostly as historical footnotes. The images that matter are those sanctified and established in the Church when their content had matured and standardized across the Church so that it embodied visually the fullness of the theological teaching and life of the Church.  

You cannot have the Bible and reject the Church that gave it to you, nor can you have it and reject the Divine Liturgy, the veneration of the Saints, nor the use and veneration of the icons of those same Saint.  You might as well say you accept water but reject wetness. It's all the same fountain.

Violation of the first commandment: It is true God said not to make an image of Himself in His commandments to Moses. Was there a reason?
Why could Moses and Aaron use symbols of various beasts and plants and make images of angels, but not of God?  Might not it be that God had not yet revealed His own image in time and history.  Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate? Do you believe Jesus if both fully God and fully man?  Do you believe if brownie instamatics or video cameras had existed in the first century that anyone who got close enough could have taken a photograph or made a home movie of Christ talking to his disciples, walking down a road, feeding the multitudes, or crucified one day on a Roman cross?  Unless angels would have interfered in some way or a pillar of fire interposed between your camera and your subject…then an image of Christ in the world would have been possible.  And if a photographed image is possible, then a sketched or painted one is possible as well.  So what then does it mean with respect to images that Christ would be seen and photographed or drawn?  Does it not mean at least that while He was not with us, there was no image we had for reference, but after He came, He supplied His own image in Himself.  And thereafter that image could be recorded just as were His words, and just like His words, treasured and passed down among the faithful?  The commandment is not broken. It is fulfilled.  In the OT times God was heard, and His words recorded by the Prophets. In the NT God dwelt among us and was seen, heard, and handled of men, thus His words and His image were recored by His followers. In the OT an image of God would have been a blasphemy for no Image had been given. In the NT an image is not blasphemy if it is modeled on the Image God gave of Himself, rather it is a testimony to the fact of the Incarnation, that God indeed became man and dwelt among us.

Veneration of images. What gestures of respect/reverence are permissible to the faithful and what are not?  What about the flag. We salute the flag and it's not an image…and technically not even a symbol. It is a sign of our country. Are you saluting colors and patterns on cloth? No, you are saluting what those colors and patterns point to.  What if we saluted icons but didn't bow to them would that be okay?  Why can't a bow serve as a type of salute. It is not our custom…but it is the custom in various Asian cultures.  They are no more worshiping their flags by bowing than we are by saluting…but they are honoring their country which is represented by their flags.  

Given that icons, the culture that they originated in and the customs of that culture are both far more ancient and far more eastern in mindset than Western Europe and European style saluting (which came into existence with knights raising their visors to be recognized.) bowing then as a gesture of respect may not be so far fetched.  What given that in places Scripture forbids bowing to idols, yet has numerous examples of people bowing to kings (if they weren't being persecuted for their faith)…when is a bow showing such honor as may be shown a human in high authority, and bowing to some thing believed to be a god allowed or distinguished?

The Church answered that question in the 7th council (which right to hold authoritative councils is established in the 15th chapter of Acts). It said the veneration shown to an icon is the same as may be shown unto a man. It is not the worship reserved for God alone. It further says the honor shown to the icon is not to it's image as an image or to it's material components, but rather to it's prototype, the person depicted.  If an icon grows too marred for recognition and hence for veneration it may as well be burned like firewood. So given the body has a limited physical vocabulary so to speak to show reverence or any other thing…some gestures have to do double duty…and people are trusted to have the brains to distinguish what is to be understood by that gesture.  

I recall one day a few years ago a Protestant came to visit one of our services that just happened to be one of the feasts of the Holy and life giving Cross.  The point came in the service where the people began to kiss and prostrate before cross starting with the priest, wave after wave of the faithful falling on their faces, in reverence.  This young man literally collapsed like he was struck with a two by four. He could not stand…he just dropped to his knees trembling and weeping. When his friends (some of whom were members there) got him outside to compose himself, he sat on the front steps almost emptied of words, tears running down his face, saying over and over again…"It was so beautiful. It was so beautiful."
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 17, 2013, 06:35:12 PM
Just sort of shotgunning here are a number of responses:

(1) 1st. Century Images: Given the stretches of time involved the survival of such artifacts to this day are unlikely, though not impossible.  There are at least 4 or 5 images of the Theotokos that are reputed to be originals from the hand of St. Luke.  Be that as it may, as ancient as these images are they bear the marks of numerous touch ups and repairs across the centuries…so ascertaining the how much of the original work is left may not be possible.
 
We must also bear in mind the ravages of the iconoclasts. We have no way of knowing how much from the most ancient times they destroyed, or how much of that deposit was later destroyed under the rule of image hating Islamists.  

That said there are a few documents that bear witness to some very ancient images that were known to the authors of these accounts. In the History of the Church compiled by Eusebius he recounts seeing with his own eyes the double bronzes images set upon the gate posts of the house of the woman healed of the issue of blood. One was of a woman kneeling in posture of supplication, the other was of a man with the features of Jesus, wearing a double cloak about his shoulders and with his hand extended towards the woman supplicant.  This set of images was reputedly raised by the healed woman herself. (Book 7 chapter 18).

Eusebius said he had also seen old images/portraits of Christ and of Sts. Peter and Paul. Given that Eusebius was an active Bishop in the early 4th century, that would strongly suggest at a minimum the images he had seen belonged to the third century if not sooner. St. Gregory of Nyssa, also from the early to mid 4th century mentions very moving representations of the Passion of Christ and the Sacrifice of Issac.

As to the sign of the cross, here is a passage from Tertullian from the 2nd Century:
Quote
"Caro abluitur ut anima maculetur; caro ungitur ut anima consecretur; caro signatur ut et anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur ut et anima de Deo saginetur" (The flesh is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed [with the cross], that the soul, too, may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may have its fill of God — "Deres. Carnis.", viii). (from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm)
From the same source:
Quote
The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezekiel 9:4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Apocalypse 7:3, 9:4 and 14:1. Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects — already Tertullian speaks of the Christian woman "signing" her bed (cum lectulum tuum signas, "Ad uxor.", ii, 5) before retiring to rest—and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on the lips (Jerome, "Epitaph. Paulæ") and on the heart (Prudentius, "Cathem.", vi, 129). Not unnaturally if the object were more remote, the cross which was directed towards it had to be made in the air.

2. The origin of icons of the saints and martyrs in Egyptian funerary customs: There are a number of reference works on the history of iconography that mention this. One of note is Iconostasis by St. Pavel Florensky, the physicist, iconographer and martyr of the early 20th century. One may see examples of the early types of these portraits in encaustic in the Fayoum images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits

3.
Quote
Bible and Image: So let's see:
1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.  Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.  

Let's examine your argument: No first century proof. Well, if you read above some proof is provided from the time of Eusebius that 1st century images existed. Granted the particular 1st century image he mentions was a statue and while it was cherished by the Christian community of his time, there is no particular reference to it's veneration or of it being treated like icons came to be treated in the Church. Historically, I believe the last mention of these bronzes was in the 6th century. Still, it establishes that images of Christ were known in the Church of the 1st Century…not that such a thing should matter too much. The mention of portraits of Christ known to Eusebius and to St. Gregory put the use of flat images/portraits easily within the 3rd century, and strongly suggests they these must rest on earlier 1st century models….that was not the sort of thing honest Christians would just make up or other honest Christians take up unless such things had roots in Apostolic times.  The reason such an assertion can be made is because it was these same men in the 4th century testifying of images in the Church who were responsible for compiling the Scriptures of the New Testament and joining them with the other attested works of the Old Testament as Scripture for the Church?

Where did the Lord ever give the command that any of His Apostles should compose narrations of His life and Crucifixion and Resurrection? Where did the Lord or the 12 ever command that the Letters of St. Paul or any of their own letters should be collected and compiled together with the Gospel accounts as new Scripture for Christians. Nowhere. So how did these writings become Scripture? They were preserved in the churches for whom and to whom they were first written. They were treasured, shared, copied and passed from one Church to the other….this is enough to grant they were very inspirational writings, but by what authority were they edited here and there to stitch in missing bits of the respective apostolic tradition (like the end of the Gospel of St. Mark), and by what authority were they raised to the level of and used in the Churches as Scripture? It can only be the authority of the Church itself, which is the Bride of Christ, the Church of whom St. Paul says that it is the pillar and foundation of all truth; the same church that he directs to keep both the written and the unwritten tradition in his epistles.  

If that God given, God ordained authority is sufficient to establish the authority and use of NT Scripture in the Church for it's teaching and edification, then why is it somehow insufficient to establish the use of images to teach the same things in line and colors as it did in words scribed in pen and ink? You cannot accept the testimony of the Scriptures and at the same time refuse icons, for it is the same Church working by the same Holy Spirit given authority that gives us them both.

It does not matter than no first century evidence of icons remains anymore than it matters that no first century autographs of the Gospels remain. The form the Scriptures had attained by the 3rd and 4th centuries when authoritative collections were listed and gathered to counter the false writings of the heretics…that is the form that matters most, for that is the form that gives us the present text of our New Testament Scriptures.  The various local image traditions of the first generations of the Church matter mostly as historical footnotes. The images that matter are those sanctified and established in the Church when their content had matured and standardized across the Church so that it embodied visually the fullness of the theological teaching and life of the Church.  

You cannot have the Bible and reject the Church that gave it to you, nor can you have it and reject the Divine Liturgy, the veneration of the Saints, nor the use and veneration of the icons of those same Saint.  You might as well say you accept water but reject wetness. It's all the same fountain.

Violation of the first commandment: It is true God said not to make an image of Himself in His commandments to Moses. Was there a reason?
Why could Moses and Aaron use symbols of various beasts and plants and make images of angels, but not of God?  Might not it be that God had not yet revealed His own image in time and history.  Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate? Do you believe Jesus if both fully God and fully man?  Do you believe if brownie instamatics or video cameras had existed in the first century that anyone who got close enough could have taken a photograph or made a home movie of Christ talking to his disciples, walking down a road, feeding the multitudes, or crucified one day on a Roman cross?  Unless angels would have interfered in some way or a pillar of fire interposed between your camera and your subject…then an image of Christ in the world would have been possible.  And if a photographed image is possible, then a sketched or painted one is possible as well.  So what then does it mean with respect to images that Christ would be seen and photographed or drawn?  Does it not mean at least that while He was not with us, there was no image we had for reference, but after He came, He supplied His own image in Himself.  And thereafter that image could be recorded just as were His words, and just like His words, treasured and passed down among the faithful?  The commandment is not broken. It is fulfilled.  In the OT times God was heard, and His words recorded by the Prophets. In the NT God dwelt among us and was seen, heard, and handled of men, thus His words and His image were recored by His followers. In the OT an image of God would have been a blasphemy for no Image had been given. In the NT an image is not blasphemy if it is modeled on the Image God gave of Himself, rather it is a testimony to the fact of the Incarnation, that God indeed became man and dwelt among us.

Veneration of images. What gestures of respect/reverence are permissible to the faithful and what are not?  What about the flag. We salute the flag and it's not an image…and technically not even a symbol. It is a sign of our country. Are you saluting colors and patterns on cloth? No, you are saluting what those colors and patterns point to.  What if we saluted icons but didn't bow to them would that be okay?  Why can't a bow serve as a type of salute. It is not our custom…but it is the custom in various Asian cultures.  They are no more worshiping their flags by bowing than we are by saluting…but they are honoring their country which is represented by their flags.  

Given that icons, the culture that they originated in and the customs of that culture are both far more ancient and far more eastern in mindset than Western Europe and European style saluting (which came into existence with knights raising their visors to be recognized.) bowing then as a gesture of respect may not be so far fetched.  What given that in places Scripture forbids bowing to idols, yet has numerous examples of people bowing to kings (if they weren't being persecuted for their faith)…when is a bow showing such honor as may be shown a human in high authority, and bowing to some thing believed to be a god allowed or distinguished?

The Church answered that question in the 7th council (which right to hold authoritative councils is established in the 15th chapter of Acts). It said the veneration shown to an icon is the same as may be shown unto a man. It is not the worship reserved for God alone. It further says the honor shown to the icon is not to it's image as an image or to it's material components, but rather to it's prototype, the person depicted.  If an icon grows too marred for recognition and hence for veneration it may as well be burned like firewood. So given the body has a limited physical vocabulary so to speak to show reverence or any other thing…some gestures have to do double duty…and people are trusted to have the brains to distinguish what is to be understood by that gesture.  

I recall one day a few years ago a Protestant came to visit one of our services that just happened to be one of the feasts of the Holy and life giving Cross.  The point came in the service where the people began to kiss and prostrate before cross starting with the priest, wave after wave of the faithful falling on their faces, in reverence.  This young man literally collapsed like he was struck with a two by four. He could not stand…he just dropped to his knees trembling and weeping. When his friends (some of whom were members there) got him outside to compose himself, he sat on the front steps almost emptied of words, tears running down his face, saying over and over again…"It was so beautiful. It was so beautiful."

I know your answer is long, but most of it consists of legends.   "Theotokos icons from St. Luke", where Luke never wrote about them.

Eusebius writing of a statue, who lived in the 4th century.

And you are WRONG, as the EO church did not give us the scriptures, they may have voted in the official books, but the books already existed.  (Of course RC's say the same that THEY gave us the bible).  The EO did not exist in the 1st & 2nd century.  So many of the practices are different.

If there were icons in the 1st/2nd century, there would be writings about them at least, or several evidences of them.  The EO church has an abundance of them in every church, yet they were non-existent, non-commanded, nor required by the earliest Christians.   (I say required, because I don't believe you could be EO without venerating icons).

I've already answered about Moses, as they were commanded to.  Also the images were not venerated.



Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 17, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
It is very difficult to say what was and what was not going on in the first 3 centuries of the church.  Christians were being persecuted and killed at such a rate that the focus was more on survival than on creating things that would have a lasting presence.  We don't even have all the writings of the Apostles much less details on all the practices and traditions of the early Church.  We do know, however, that icons were the default position in the 8th century and the attempt to destroy them caused a great uproar.  Icons were known by Irenaeus, but not condemned.  If there was such a controversy in moving away from iconography, why was there never a similar controversy when moving towards it from the "iconoclastic" 1st & 2nd century Christianity that you are proposing?  

Surely we would have more Bishops and Christians speaking out against it.  Instead we have one local synod, the synod of Elvira that condemned it, but we don't know the context.  It is possible that people were misusing icons and they decided to ban them out of an abundance of caution.  Other than that, there are almost no other references of opposition to iconography.  Why is that?  You might say that I am arguing from silence, but you are as well.  Every argument you have made is that you do not see evidence of iconography or veneration, but the fact is, we don't have much evidence of anything because it was destroyed.  It is unfortunate, but it is the way it is.

To say that some practices are different does not mean that it is a different church.  Baptists in the 1940s were much different than Baptists today, yet they are still Baptists.  Even the anabaptist Amish do not keep everything completely consistent.  Each year the make rulings on what will be allowed and disallowed in their fellowship.  Otherwise, all Christians should still be worshiping in catacombs.

To accuse the clergy in the photo of breaking the 1st commandment is no different than if you go out and cut the grass on Saturday.  You are breaking the Sabbath, how are you any different than they?  Is it because the Sabbath is now Sunday?  Why? What basis do you have for that?  You make an exception or explanation for yourself, but will not apply a similar exception or understanding to the veneration of icons?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: DuxI on June 17, 2013, 07:47:44 PM

What years & was there veneration?

The only catacomb art that has dates that I can find were from the mid 4th century.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Good_shepherd_02b_close.jpg

That is from the mid 3rd century.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Good_shepherd_01_small.jpg

Also from the 3rd century.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Dura-europos-paralytic.jpg

From Dura Europos, dated around 235 AD

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Madonna_catacomb.jpg

The Theotokos, 2nd century.

And, very important, one of the earlier proofs of the cross being symbol of Christians is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Brigidsboy on June 17, 2013, 07:48:23 PM
When was the idea of Christ introduced and can it be proven?  I don't want legends from the so-called gospels or later additions to Josephus or made-up tradition.  DNA evidence is preferable.  If you have videotapes of any of his miracles, that would help me out too.  I also accept live-streaming of any of his sermons. Also, it might help me out if we could get Jesus' thoughts on calling His mom the Theotokos, anybody have any recordings on that?  ::)

+1
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: DuxI on June 17, 2013, 07:53:14 PM
s speaking out against it.  Instead we have one local synod, the synod of Elvira that condemned it, but we don't know the context.

Not all canons of the council are believed to be brought on that synod. Some are later additions.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 17, 2013, 10:18:50 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.

You use the plural. Surely you have more examples than St. Theodosia (and she didn't murder), but was murdered.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 17, 2013, 10:25:49 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.

You use the plural. Surely you have more examples than St. Theodosia (and she didn't murder), but was murdered.

If an iconoclast shook an iconodule off a ladder they would be the devil themselves, though.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shanghaiski on June 17, 2013, 10:32:18 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.

You use the plural. Surely you have more examples than St. Theodosia (and she didn't murder), but was murdered.

If an iconoclast shook an iconodule off a ladder they would be the devil themselves, though.

No. Why be idiotic?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 17, 2013, 10:38:24 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.

You use the plural. Surely you have more examples than St. Theodosia (and she didn't murder), but was murdered.

If an iconoclast shook an iconodule off a ladder they would be the devil themselves, though.

No. Why be idiotic?

Be careful, I said the same thing a while back and got moderated for a week.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 18, 2013, 01:43:03 AM
I know your answer is long, but most of it consists of legends.   "Theotokos icons from St. Luke", where Luke never wrote about them.

St Luke never wrote, as far as I know, about his parents.  So did he grow out of the earth like corn? 

Quote
And you are WRONG, as the EO church did not give us the scriptures, they may have voted in the official books, but the books already existed.  (Of course RC's say the same that THEY gave us the bible).  The EO did not exist in the 1st & 2nd century.  So many of the practices are different.

There are several layers of conflation here. 

In the first place, terms like "RC", "EO", "OO", etc. are not original to the Church; they were devised in order to distinguish between "factions" which became clearly distinguished after various schisms.  When the NT was canonised, there were no major divisions like that.  There was "the Church", which used the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" almost interchangeably.  EO and OO refer to their Churches as "Catholic", and in the Roman Canon (the main anaphora of the RC's), the first prayer commemorates the Bishop of Rome, the local bishop, and "all the Orthodox who hold and profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith" (or however the Latin translates).  If you want to argue that there was no such thing as "EO" in the first and second centuries, you're only right in the sense that there were not the divisions back then that exist now and for which we require new terms.  But you're dead wrong if you think that what is now called EO cannot claim a historical continuity with the Church of the first and second centuries. 

So many practices may have changed, adapted, or been introduced since the earliest days: for example, we haven't had to seriously worry about being crucified for our faith in a long time.  But changes don't automatically indicate that it's a whole new religion anymore than you are a whole new person with every year you've aged.  The Church on earth lives in time.  Stuff happens in that time.  But it is the same Church because it is the same Body of Christ. 

When the NT was canonised, the books that "made it in" already existed, but so many other books existed as well.  In the sense that the Church did the sifting and determined what is Scripture and what is not, yes, the Church gave us the NT (never mind that it was members of the Church, founders even, who wrote the NT, giving those writings to the Church).  Your post makes it seem like "voting in the official books" wasn't that big a deal.  If so, that's preposterous.     

Quote
If there were icons in the 1st/2nd century, there would be writings about them at least, or several evidences of them.  The EO church has an abundance of them in every church, yet they were non-existent, non-commanded, nor required by the earliest Christians.   (I say required, because I don't believe you could be EO without venerating icons).

Why would there have to be writings?  Because while people were converting in secret and running for their lives to avoid being crucified, tarred, burnt, or fed to hungry animals for the sake of Christ, they had an obligation to write books about art?  Art is something that can take off once you don't have to worry about persecution; art takes off when there is money, properties, patronage, etc.  Frankly, I'm impressed that there are any examples at all of Christian art in the catacombs. 

Some examples of early art have been posted, but you're not going to find a first century church that looks like St John the Baptist in Washington, DC.  It's anachronistic to expect that the 21st century EO churches full of iconography you see around you should've existed in the first century if it was a truly legitimate practice.   

I agree with you that current EO practice regarding icons doesn't in all respects reflect earlier practice, that now you can't be EO without accepting the veneration of icons as a matter of faith, whereas before it would not have been mandated or required in the same way.  My own tradition follows what I believe is the older tradition.  But you can't understand the EO position on icons without factoring in the history of iconoclasm and how and why icons "won".  What may not have been a theological matter before became a theological matter because both the iconoclasts and the iconodules made theological arguments for and against icons; when the iconodules "won", it was because their theological arguments were sound, and the iconoclast arguments were against the faith.  After it's "gone there", you can't ever return back to the time when icons "weren't a big deal".  You could if you were never part of the argument (like the OO); but even for us, while iconoclasm wasn't our fight, we agree wholeheartedly with the theology of the icon as expressed by the EO.   
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Salpy on June 18, 2013, 01:57:49 AM
This one might help.

http://silouanthompson.net/2008/11/paralytic-dura-europos/

The problem with that is no one really knows whose church the one in Dura-Europos was. For all anyone can really claim, it might've been a gnostic sect.

It wouldn't be Gnostic.  The Gnostics believed matter to be fallen or evil, and had a problem with depicting Christ in the flesh.  There was a thread about this recently, about how many Gnostics were actually docetist and believed Christ's body was not even real.

Probably the first defense of icons was written by the Armenian monk Vrtanes in the early 600's, before the iconoclastic movement ever came to Constantinople.  Vrtanes was arguing against Gnostics who objected to icons.  They believed that Christ was like an angel, without a real body, and therefore should not be depicted.  

That of course illustrates why icons are not a problem for Christians.  They remind us of how Christ revealed Himself to us in the flesh.  With the incarnation, God was no longer invisible;  After He was born, He could be seen and touched.  During the time of the Old Testament, it made sense to forbid painting pictures of God, since He was not incarnate.  After the incarnation, however, it became possible, and venerating icons became a confession of faith in the incarnation.  

In fact, if you look at the early controversies surrounding icons, the people objecting to them tended to be people who had problems with the incarnation, such as Gnostics or Nestorians.  Even the Iconoclast movement in Constantinople is thought by some historians to have been influenced by Islam, which was a growing force at that time.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: john_mo on June 18, 2013, 04:35:00 AM
yeshuaism:  I can understand your questioning: If Orthodoxy is the original Church, then where did they practice iconography in the 1st century? 

We as Orthodox however, don't claim that each and every practice we have existed explicitly in the 1st century.  I can't think of any reason why Iconography as it's practiced today MUST HAVE been practiced in the same way since the Church began.  In fact, it doesn't quite make sense that it would have.

To put it another way; the Gospels weren't always there.  The Apostles first instinct wasn't to record the Gospels, nevertheless as circumstances changed, this is what happened in response.  Certainly some skeptics assert, using the same logic, that the Gospels were a post 1AD creation.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: DuxI on June 18, 2013, 06:04:18 AM

That inlays another problem for another thread.  Constantine.... Yes, St. Constantine - murdered over 200k people AFTER Nicea.  Go check other threads.

St. Constantine did not murder with his own hands, but waged wars in which people died. What could he do? Leave Licinius to wipe Christians our of the Eastern part of the Empire? Or maybe leave the barbarian tribes into entering the borders of the Empire and plundering and massacring the people? Other Emperors left the barbarians doing that....and the Western part of the Empire descended into chaos.  If what St. Constantine the Great did is murder, then how can we call Moses, King David, many prophets in the Bible righteous and saints?
One of the many flaws of sola scriptura belief is that it is co contradictory to logic, reason and history.

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 18, 2013, 06:22:51 AM
Not interested in "Legends" (St. Luke's icon that can't be proven)

What is proof? If someone asks me if the dishes are washed I could show them clean dishes as proof. If you want to proof that someone murdered the victim a positive dna test would suffice. But if you want to verify that a few thousand Greek soldiers fought the Persians at Gaugamela you could point to a passage in Arrian as proof. And yet Arrian wrote centuries after the Battle of Gaugamela. Does that reduce the Battle of Gaugamela to a mere legend which cannot be proven? Should the Battle of Gaugamela be reduced to an ahistoric fiction?


Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.

Icons from the first century are likely decomposed by now so that's silly. Documents from first century Christianity are sparse and did not deal with matters of worship. Only St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century dealt with worship but he only used one or two lines for it. So how could one prove icons with such meagre sources?

But then again, why would you trust Arrian that a battle did happen at Gaugamela at which Alexander crushingly defeated the Persians when Arrian wrote 400 years after the supposed battle but disbelieve Eusebius who wrote 200 years after the apostles that icons were indeed used in the apostolical era?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: primuspilus on June 18, 2013, 06:24:28 AM
Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture#Christian_Art_prior_to_313 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture#Christian_Art_prior_to_313)

As for veneration, and documentation, the early Christians were a little busy getting eaten by lions or being attached to anchors and thrown into the sea to document everything.

Quote
But then again, why would you trust Arrian that a battle did happen at Gaugamela at which Alexander crushingly defeated the Persians when Arrian wrote 400 years after the supposed battle but disbelieve Eusebius who wrote 200 years after the apostles that icons were indeed used in the apostolical era?
For the same reason every other iconoclast does....it does not fit their narrative, so its thrown out. Then again, alot of us (people in general) are guilty of that.

PP
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 18, 2013, 07:56:50 AM
I know your answer is long, but most of it consists of legends.   "Theotokos icons from St. Luke", where Luke never wrote about them.

St Luke never wrote, as far as I know, about his parents.  So did he grow out of the earth like corn? 

Quote
And you are WRONG, as the EO church did not give us the scriptures, they may have voted in the official books, but the books already existed.  (Of course RC's say the same that THEY gave us the bible).  The EO did not exist in the 1st & 2nd century.  So many of the practices are different.

There are several layers of conflation here. 
Jimi
In the first place, terms like "RC", "EO", "OO", etc. are not original to the Church; they were devised in order to distinguish between "factions" which became clearly distinguished after various schisms.  When the NT was canonised, there were no major divisions like that.  There was "the Church", which used the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic" almost interchangeably.  EO and OO refer to their Churches as "Catholic", and in the Roman Canon (the main anaphora of the RC's), the first prayer commemorates the Bishop of Rome, the local bishop, and "all the Orthodox who hold and profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith" (or however the Latin translates).  If you want to argue that there was no such thing as "EO" in the first and second centuries, you're only right in the sense that there were not the divisions back then that exist now and for which we require new terms.  But you're dead wrong if you think that what is now called EO cannot claim a historical continuity with the Church of the first and second centuries. 

So many practices may have changed, adapted, or been introduced since the earliest days: for example, we haven't had to seriously worry about being crucified for our faith in a long time.  But changes don't automatically indicate that it's a whole new religion anymore than you are a whole new person with every year you've aged.  The Church on earth lives in time.  Stuff happens in that time.  But it is the same Church because it is the same Body of Christ. 

When the NT was canonised, the books that "made it in" already existed, but so many other books existed as well.  In the sense that the Church did the sifting and determined what is Scripture and what is not, yes, the Church gave us the NT (never mind that it was members of the Church, founders even, who wrote the NT, giving those writings to the Church).  Your post makes it seem like "voting in the official books" wasn't that big a deal.  If so, that's preposterous.     

Quote
If there were icons in the 1st/2nd century, there would be writings about them at least, or several evidences of them.  The EO church has an abundance of them in every church, yet they were non-existent, non-commanded, nor required by the earliest Christians.   (I say required, because I don't believe you could be EO without venerating icons).

Why would there have to be writings?  Because while people were converting in secret and running for their lives to avoid being crucified, tarred, burnt, or fed to hungry animals for the sake of Christ, they had an obligation to write books about art?  Art is something that can take off once you don't have to worry about persecution; art takes off when there is money, properties, patronage, etc.  Frankly, I'm impressed that there are any examples at all of Christian art in the catacombs. 

Some examples of early art have been posted, but you're not going to find a first century church that looks like St John the Baptist in Washington, DC.  It's anachronistic to expect that the 21st century EO churches full of iconography you see around you should've existed in the first century if it was a truly legitimate practice.   

I agree with you that current EO practice regarding icons doesn't in all respects reflect earlier practice, that now you can't be EO without accepting the veneration of icons as a matter of faith, whereas before it would not have been mandated or required in the same way.  My own tradition follows what I believe is the older tradition.  But you can't understand the EO position on icons without factoring in the history of iconoclasm and how and why icons "won".  What may not have been a theological matter before became a theological matter because both the iconoclasts and the iconodules made theological arguments for and against icons; when the iconodules "won", it was because their theological arguments were sound, and the iconoclast arguments were against the faith.  After it's "gone there", you can't ever return back to the time when icons "weren't a big deal".  You could if you were never part of the argument (like the OO); but even for us, while iconoclasm wasn't our fight, we agree wholeheartedly with the theology of the icon as expressed by the EO.   

+1 A most thoughtful, well structured and well reasoned argument. Thank you.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 18, 2013, 09:28:55 AM
This one might help.

http://silouanthompson.net/2008/11/paralytic-dura-europos/

The problem with that is no one really knows whose church the one in Dura-Europos was. For all anyone can really claim, it might've been a gnostic sect.

It wouldn't be Gnostic.  The Gnostics believed matter to be fallen or evil, and had a problem with depicting Christ in the flesh.  There was a thread about this recently, about how many Gnostics were actually docetist and believed Christ's body was not even real.

Probably the first defense of icons was written by the Armenian monk Vrtanes in the early 600's, before the iconoclastic movement ever came to Constantinople.  Vrtanes was arguing against Gnostics who objected to icons.  They believed that Christ was like an angel, without a real body, and therefore should not be depicted.  

That of course illustrates why icons are not a problem for Christians.  They remind us of how Christ revealed Himself to us in the flesh.  With the incarnation, God was no longer invisible;  After He was born, He could be seen and touched.  During the time of the Old Testament, it made sense to forbid painting pictures of God, since He was not incarnate.  After the incarnation, however, it became possible, and venerating icons became a confession of faith in the incarnation.  

In fact, if you look at the early controversies surrounding icons, the people objecting to them tended to be people who had problems with the incarnation, such as Gnostics or Nestorians.  Even the Iconoclast movement in Constantinople is thought by some historians to have been influenced by Islam, which was a growing force at that time.

There was no one Gnostic religion. Irenaeus wrote about Gnostics that used images of Christ and set them alongside images of Pythagoras.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 18, 2013, 09:30:09 AM
There was no one Gnostic religion. Irenaeus wrote about Gnostics that used images of Christ and set them alongside images of Pythagoras.

That was one of the Roman Emperors, not the gnostics.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 18, 2013, 09:32:21 AM
There was no one Gnostic religion. Irenaeus wrote about Gnostics that used images of Christ and set them alongside images of Pythagoras.

That was one of the Roman Emperors, not the gnostics.

Didn't know Marcellina and the Carpocratians were emperors.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on June 18, 2013, 09:35:03 AM
There was no one Gnostic religion. Irenaeus wrote about Gnostics that used images of Christ and set them alongside images of Pythagoras.

That was one of the Roman Emperors, not the gnostics.

Didn't know Marcellina and the Carpocratians were emperors.

But Emperor Alexander Severus was an emperor.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 18, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
There was no one Gnostic religion. Irenaeus wrote about Gnostics that used images of Christ and set them alongside images of Pythagoras.

That was one of the Roman Emperors, not the gnostics.

Didn't know Marcellina and the Carpocratians were emperors.

But Emperor Alexander Severus was an emperor.

Which is beyond the point. It was gnostics, not just the emperor.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: DuxI on June 18, 2013, 09:47:53 AM
There was no one Gnostic religion. Irenaeus wrote about Gnostics that used images of Christ and set them alongside images of Pythagoras.

That was one of the Roman Emperors, not the gnostics.

Nope, it was the gnostics. Jason is right.

Irenaeus, (c. 130–202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says scornfully of the Gnostic Carpocratians, "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles [pagans]". St. Irenaeus on the other hand does not speak critically of icons or portraits in a general sense, only of certain gnostic sectarians use of icons.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 18, 2013, 09:56:39 AM
If you read the context, Irenaeus seems to be primarily offended that Christ is being placed on the same level as all the other philosophers and that some of them feel that they themselves are not inferior to Christ.

Here is my question.  If people are so offended by kissing an icon, are they also offended in kissing the hand of a priest? Is the veneration any different?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: sheenj on June 18, 2013, 10:05:56 AM
Here is my question.  If people are so offended by kissing an icon, are they also offended in kissing the hand of a priest? Is the veneration any different?

I'm fairly sure that YiIA objects to both, so in this case I don't think this is the right question to ask.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 18, 2013, 10:47:18 AM
YiM, do you object to kissing a priest's hand?  In another thread you acknowledged that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ.  How can you not kiss the hand that prepares that?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Opus118 on June 18, 2013, 11:19:49 AM
I never though I'd say this, but paging Dr. Isa, we have another one who didn't read the thread with Alfred Persson...  ::)


I was thinking the same thing Biro. I believe it was this one:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29148.msg459378.html#msg459378

It's got maps and everything.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 18, 2013, 11:32:18 AM
What i wanted to say was just that the thing that helped me in my journey towards iconography was looking on the truth matter, not history matter. Iconography was coined publicly as the church got so thanks to Constantine, but the understanding was there before, even long way back to the ark of the covenant.

Back in the early church a priest/monk could worship and love God much more just by watching the waves of the sea. If was need icons today, and the church can declare and prove it truthful, then history does not matter.

Forgive me if i point out some examples or questions. But the bible and its content/message can´t withstand the test we many times put forth on iconography. The texts and its entirety was kept through tradition, or else someone need to give me a new testament written 10 years after Christs death for me to believe it. No rather the truth within it is what matters, not where I can find the earliest copy. Same standard goes with it all, including icons.

If the EO worship in 100 years only would consist of prayer, 24 hours a day, among 100% of EO believers. What would the one seeking for 100% praying Christians say when he/she couldn´t find that through history. Is praying 24 hours a day then wrong?

That inlays another problem for another thread.  Constantine.... Yes, St. Constantine - murdered over 200k people AFTER Nicea.  Go check other threads.

And you keep killing that poor dead horse. How can you expect to be a saint?

Hey if a man who kills 200k people after his conversion to Christianity can be venerated on put on an iconostasis.......   Oh nevermind.  :P

Have you read "Defending Constantine" by Peter Leithart yet? If not, why not before making all these pronouncements about St. Constantine the Great?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: primuspilus on June 18, 2013, 12:39:22 PM
I never though I'd say this, but paging Dr. Isa, we have another one who didn't read the thread with Alfred Persson...  ::)


I was thinking the same thing Biro. I believe it was this one:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29148.msg459378.html#msg459378

It's got maps and everything.

I miss 'ole Alfred :)

PP
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 18, 2013, 02:38:38 PM
If you read the context, Irenaeus seems to be primarily offended that Christ is being placed on the same level as all the other philosophers and that some of them feel that they themselves are not inferior to Christ.

Which is again not the point in this discussion. The point was simply Gnostics did use icons as well so the fact that there are icons cannot be taken either as evidence that the Dura-Europos church was orthodox or that it wasn't gnostic. Based on the available evidence we can't do as everyone does and assume it simply must be orthodox. We have no references to anything about the church or the people there, either within the site its self or anywhere else.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: DuxI on June 18, 2013, 02:47:46 PM
If you read the context, Irenaeus seems to be primarily offended that Christ is being placed on the same level as all the other philosophers and that some of them feel that they themselves are not inferior to Christ.



I agree with you. My point with that was just to prove that even in Early Christianity, images were used, and they did not suddenly appeared, as many claim, after 325 AD. That is why st. Irenaeus does not seem to be offended by the image of Christ, but of the way that the Gnostics "venerate" His image.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
I never though I'd say this, but paging Dr. Isa, we have another one who didn't read the thread with Alfred Persson...  ::)
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4000000/Doctor-Bombay-bewitched-4002396-475-356.jpg)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 18, 2013, 02:55:22 PM
Sorry for not being clear. I was agreeing with your point, DuxI.

In regards to Dura-Europos, I believe it has a clear connection to Orthodoxy as opposed to gnosticism in that the inscription states:

“That you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins: rise up, take up your bed and walk.”

Gnosticism placed no emphasis on sins and considered the goal of salvation to save from ignorance, not sin.  Sin was just a side effect of ignorance according to gnostic teaching. On the contrary, the church emphasized repentance of sin. I think it is quite clear that gnostics did use images, but this particular image would not be considered gnostic.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 03:10:28 PM
The first icons were painted on the walls of catacombs. Not very well preserved today, but there are traces of several OT scenes, images of Christ and his Mother.

The practice took off after Constantine ended the persecutions, allowing Christians to express their faith openly without hiding behind symbols.

What years & was there veneration?

The only catacomb art that has dates that I can find were from the mid 4th century.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2010/06/23/catacomb-yields-early-christian-icons-of-apostles.html)

Icons cover every inch of the inside of a church. In your opinion, are they venerated or not?

Catacombs by definition were used in the early years of the church, and preservation of sacred art was not high on people's priorities then. If you need something more specific, you need to find a specialist.

I know they cover every inch of the church....

Icon artifacts from the 1st Century do not exist, nor are there very early writings about them, nor are they written about in the bible.  Yet they are all over the EO church, which claims to be original Christianity.  
New Testaments from the 1st Century do not exist either.  Maybe it wasn't written.

Icons covering every inch of the Church did not come into vogue until after the experience of the Iconoclast persecution.  It's amazing how people value something more after it has been taken from them.

This is the inside of the Holy Trinity Chapel at Fort Ross:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Interior_of_Fort_Ross_Chapel.jpg/220px-Interior_of_Fort_Ross_Chapel.jpg)(http://www.americansabbatical.com/ART/Logart/Logart041/Altar.jpg)(http://jameshillarchitect.com/talkingbuildings/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/image.jpg)
So we can conclude that during the 19th century (Fort Ross was founded in 1811 and evacuated in 1841) the Russian Orthodox Church was iconoclastic or at least minimalist when it comes to icons in Church.
(http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fyodor-klages-interior-of-christ-the-saviour-cathedral-in-moscow-1883.jpg)
Not.
(Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, conceived and erected in the same era as Holy Trinity chapel at Fort Ross).

But what's this?
(http://stgeorge.ia.goarch.org/images/060923_0037_lange-1.jpg)
The Orthodox of Holy Trinity Cathedral in near by San Francisco coming to exercise their right to have DL there (something that the State of CA, to which the Fort passed and is now a State Park, has allowed since the 1920's.  The Church had been trying to recover the chapel since at least the 1880's).  They bring their icons and liturgical items with them-leaving them in the care of the state would break canons.

When the congregation evacuated on January 1, 1842 (including local the local Amerindian Kashaya Pomo Orthodox) to go to New Archangel/Sitka, they took their icons and liturgical items with them:
(http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/laroche&CISOPTR=199&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=802&DMHEIGHT=620.74303405573&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&REC=1&DMTHUMB=0&DMROTATE=0)(http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/russian/sitkachr.jpg)

Not all left CA, though: some left for San Francisco, where the remnants of the Orthodox community (including two of the governors of Fort Ross) founded Holy Trinity Cathedral:
(http://orthodoxhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Interior-of-SF-Holy-Trinity-Cathedral-SF-Call-1900.jpg)

One day, decades ago, I was walking down Fullerton Avenue and saw this:
(http://www.bisericasfandrei.com/New%20Picture%20(2).png)
Obviously an Orthodox Church, I went to go take a peek.  Alas!  It had been founded as an Orthodox Church in 1914, but had been sold to the Baptists
(http://www.iglesiabautistacentral.org/uploads/photogallery/bautizosmarz3d0098.JPG)
I can't find a picture of the apse, but it was also all whitewashed with no iconostasis, with stands for the choir.  I say was because recently a Romanian (Old Calendarist) Orthodox parish has since taken it over:
(http://www.bisericasfandrei.com/New%20Picture%20(11).png)(http://www.bisericasfandrei.com/New%20Picture%20(4).png)(http://www.bisericasfandrei.com/New%20Picture%20(3).png)(http://www.bisericasfandrei.com/New%20Picture%20(6).png)
Since this picture was taken, they have put icons of the Feasts on the sides, and a Pantocrator on the ceiling.

From its website:
Quote
Each year, the church organizes a course for painting Traditional Romanian Glass Icons for young between the ages of 9-15.
http://www.bisericasfandrei.com/Church.html

From the same site we learn that the iconstasis and icons did not reappear on the walls:
Quote
The small church is painted in the Byzantine and the Neo-classical style by Romanian artists, Costel Iarca, Mircea Ciornei and Mugur Simionov, residing in Chicago.

But I already knew that, as I saw that the original parish, St. Michael's Carpatho-Russian (who sold their deconsecrated building to the Baptists), had take them to their new location in Niles (a suburb of Chicago) and put them up there:
(http://www.stmichaelniles.org/images/main-nave-panorama.jpg)

But according to your logic, the State Park system of CA and the Central Baptist Church (Iglesia Bautista Central) must be original Christianity.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: mike on June 18, 2013, 03:38:34 PM
leaving them in the care of the state would break canons.

What?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Salpy on June 18, 2013, 03:51:55 PM
This one might help.

http://silouanthompson.net/2008/11/paralytic-dura-europos/

The problem with that is no one really knows whose church the one in Dura-Europos was. For all anyone can really claim, it might've been a gnostic sect.

It wouldn't be Gnostic.  The Gnostics believed matter to be fallen or evil, and had a problem with depicting Christ in the flesh.  There was a thread about this recently, about how many Gnostics were actually docetist and believed Christ's body was not even real.

Probably the first defense of icons was written by the Armenian monk Vrtanes in the early 600's, before the iconoclastic movement ever came to Constantinople.  Vrtanes was arguing against Gnostics who objected to icons.  They believed that Christ was like an angel, without a real body, and therefore should not be depicted.  

That of course illustrates why icons are not a problem for Christians.  They remind us of how Christ revealed Himself to us in the flesh.  With the incarnation, God was no longer invisible;  After He was born, He could be seen and touched.  During the time of the Old Testament, it made sense to forbid painting pictures of God, since He was not incarnate.  After the incarnation, however, it became possible, and venerating icons became a confession of faith in the incarnation.  

In fact, if you look at the early controversies surrounding icons, the people objecting to them tended to be people who had problems with the incarnation, such as Gnostics or Nestorians.  Even the Iconoclast movement in Constantinople is thought by some historians to have been influenced by Islam, which was a growing force at that time.

There was no one Gnostic religion. Irenaeus wrote about Gnostics that used images of Christ and set them alongside images of Pythagoras.

Interesting.  I guess you are right about there being so many variations of Gnostics.  It's kind of like Protestants with so many different belief systems. 

Regarding their rejection of icons, it could be some accepted them, but the ones with the docetist or adoptionist tendencies tended to reject them.  The ones in Armenia rejected icons, hence Vrtanes' early defense of icons. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 18, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
But according to your logic, the State Park system of CA and the Central Baptist Church (Iglesia Bautista Central) must be original Christianity.

What an unexpected way to end the story, all the big pictures distracted me...LOL!
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 18, 2013, 04:12:56 PM
Probably the first defense of icons was written by the Armenian monk Vrtanes in the early 600's, before the iconoclastic movement ever came to Constantinople.  Vrtanes was arguing against Gnostics who objected to icons.  They believed that Christ was like an angel, without a real body, and therefore should not be depicted.  

That of course illustrates why icons are not a problem for Christians.  They remind us of how Christ revealed Himself to us in the flesh.  With the incarnation, God was no longer invisible;  After He was born, He could be seen and touched.  During the time of the Old Testament, it made sense to forbid painting pictures of God, since He was not incarnate.  After the incarnation, however, it became possible, and venerating icons became a confession of faith in the incarnation.

Armenians...defending icons before it was cool to defend icons.  Awesome! 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 04:14:43 PM
But let's go with the logic of jesusiamism.

They tell us that among the Wonders of the World was an enormous idol of Zeus at Olympia.
(http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia.jpg)
I've been to Olympia.  I didn't see it:
(http://holylandarchive.com/section_images/282_TempleZeusMap040727.jpg)

Another was the great Temple of Artemus
(http://intranet.arc.miami.edu/rjohn/images/HellenisticBuildingTypes/Later%20Temple%20of%20Artemis%20Turkey%20Ephesus.jpg)(http://threelittlebairds.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/img_3420.jpg)
I've been to Ephesus. I didn't see it.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Ephesus_temple_of_Artemis.jpg)

Another was the Mauseleum (the tomb and shrine of Mausolus) of Halicarnassus:
(http://www.javierjimenezonline.com/images5/mau1.jpg)
I've been to Halicarnassus. I didn't see it.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Mausoleum_of_Halicarnassus_2009.jpg)

Another was the Colossus of Helios/Apollo of Rhodes:
(http://www.rodos.com/rhodes-tn/images/colossus-rh.jpg)
I haven't been to Rhodes, but it doesn't matter: I wouldn't see it.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_016Z7b_q840/TLpXjnfeYQI/AAAAAAAAACM/RKrlRq1LCkw/s1600/Colossus+of+Rhodes-2.jpg)

Another was the Lighthouse of Pharos in Alexandria, topped by an image of Poseidon/Neptune:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/PHAROS2006.jpg/220px-PHAROS2006.jpg)
I've been to Alexandria.  I didn't see it.
(http://tourism.egypt.com/cache/articletestfld/specialarticleisland_of_pharos.jpg)

The Pharoahs, who were worshipped as gods, built the oldest wonder of the world (and the only ones still standing), the Pyramids, to enshrine their relics:
(http://ancientburial.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/img_6895.jpg)
I've been inside the Great Pyramid.  No royal mummy to be seen.
(http://www.sacredsitesjourneys.com/Images/Egypt/Egypt-Giza-GreatPyramidKingsChamber-Box4.jpg)
Herodotus, who made up the list of the Wonders, visited in the Fifth cent. BC.  He describes the pyramids, but doesn't say a thing about the Great Sphinx.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Sphinx_and_pyramids_of_Giza_panorama.jpg)
I guess it wasn't there in the Fifth Century BC.  Which is odd, given that it is carved out of a limestone outcropping that predates the pyramids, and between its paws lies an image of Thutmoses (1401–1391 BC) a millenium before worshiping it.
(http://ib205.tripod.com/18th_dynasty/tuthmosis_4/sphinx-1.gif)

Soooo, using your "logic," I must conclude that the ancient pagans didn't worship idols, or have images.  After all, if their most famous examples don't exist, why should I believe they ever existed?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 18, 2013, 04:18:09 PM
I have learned from this thread that I need to become better friends with ialmisry and maybe I will get invited to go on super cool trips.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 04:18:27 PM
leaving them in the care of the state would break canons.

What?
consecrated objects are not supposed to be turned over to profane hands.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 18, 2013, 04:22:40 PM
Soooo, using your "logic," I must conclude that the ancient pagans didn't worship idols, or have images.  After all, if their most famous examples don't exist, why should I believe they ever existed?

I love you. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Nephi on June 18, 2013, 04:33:08 PM
Soooo, using your "logic," I must conclude that the ancient pagans didn't worship idols, or have images.  After all, if their most famous examples don't exist, why should I believe they ever existed?

I love you. 

+1

We have had a severe lack of pictures and maps lately...
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: sheenj on June 18, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
Soooo, using your "logic," I must conclude that the ancient pagans didn't worship idols, or have images.  After all, if their most famous examples don't exist, why should I believe they ever existed?


(http://i.imgur.com/r2ccy1u.gif)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shiny on June 18, 2013, 05:17:27 PM
Soooo, using your "logic," I must conclude that the ancient pagans didn't worship idols, or have images.  After all, if their most famous examples don't exist, why should I believe they ever existed?
Aaaahahahahahahaha!!
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 07:14:42 PM
Yet they are all over the EO church, which claims to be original Christianity.

Yes, they are. Yes, it is. Your point?

My point is, icons can't be proven to be part of the original church, yet are a major part of the EO faith.
Sola Scriptura can't be proven to be part of the original Church, yet is a major part of the jesusiamist "faith."
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 07:55:01 PM
Not interested in "Legends" (St. Luke's icon that can't be proven)

What is proof? If someone asks me if the dishes are washed I could show them clean dishes as proof. If you want to proof that someone murdered the victim a positive dna test would suffice. But if you want to verify that a few thousand Greek soldiers fought the Persians at Gaugamela you could point to a passage in Arrian as proof. And yet Arrian wrote centuries after the Battle of Gaugamela. Does that reduce the Battle of Gaugamela to a mere legend which cannot be proven? Should the Battle of Gaugamela be reduced to an ahistoric fiction?


Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.
No, simplistic.

For example, every Roman emperor had official portraits made, which were copied and distributed throughout the empire, to all levels of society).

out of the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of portraits made for each of the nearly one hundred emperors from Augustus to Constantine, only this one has survived.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Severan_dynasty_-_tondo.png)

Given that these state sponsored images did not survive, how do you expect those images whose possession was a capital offense should survive in profusion?

Then there is the question of those which survive being "restored," like this one in San Marco, going from something like this
(http://www.hanscomfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/John_of_Stagnos_Visitation.jpg)(http://gabrielsmessage.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/icon_dormition4_medium.jpg)
to this in a Renaissance "restoration"
(http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8XZ8XV/$File/Andrea-Del-Castagno-Dormition-of-the-Virgin-2-.JPG)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 07:56:52 PM
I'm not interested in any truth but that which fits into my narrow-minded view of what Early Christianity must have been.

FTFY

Thou shalt not bear false witness to thy neighbor.
Physician, heal thyself.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 18, 2013, 08:51:34 PM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Can you point to a surviving manuscript from the New Testament from the first century? I don't think any manuscripts have survived from that period either.

Fair enough.  Paper & paintings have different longevity.... 
Also of course the text was copied, none of which mentioned icons.  :-\

Sure. If you say it enough, you will more and more convince yourself not to repent.

You mean in front of an icon?  Kind of circular.   I'm actually looking for clear cut sources.  Look if I'm wrong, I'm wrong... I can accept that.
 
I see you saying it. I just don't see you meaning it.

But I can't accept icons as original until I see something.
OK Thomas.

If I ever rejoin the EO church, I must have clarification on things.  I can't just "venerate", and go on, when I feel it is sinful.
well, you have your choice: either Christ meant it when He said the gates of hell will never prevail over the Church and He is with the Church always-lit. all the days-even unto the end of the age, or He is a liar.  In which latter case, we need not worry about anything he said.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 18, 2013, 09:21:46 PM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shiny on June 18, 2013, 09:24:50 PM
YiM, go home buddy, you're through.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: William on June 18, 2013, 09:30:31 PM
Professor, you have a PhD, correct? So can we call you doctor?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 18, 2013, 09:33:43 PM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 18, 2013, 10:14:27 PM
Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.

I don't know what happened during the years of my absence from this forum, but from my total time here, I don't know if this is an entirely fair assessment.  Many different people seem to have offered answers to this and similar questions from different angles to try and present a comprehensive answer (I myself learned some new things from this discussion).  But the only answer that seems like it would satisfy the questioner is something outrageous along the lines of "Here is a photo of an icon from the first century, along with a treatise written by the Apostle Silas describing the apostolic theology of icons and how to venerate them...you'll notice the same procedure outlined in the Jordanville Prayer Book nineteen centuries later".  Absent this, his attitude seems to be that icons are just plain old idolatry.  All manner of Youtube videos making outrageous claims with flimsy evidence are acceptable when they fit his narrative, but the moment something doesn't, the only way to prove it is to pull a first century example out of your hat.  Nonsense. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 18, 2013, 10:28:33 PM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.

We keep giving the same answers because people keep asking the same questions.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 18, 2013, 10:51:11 PM
Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.

I don't know what happened during the years of my absence from this forum, but from my total time here, I don't know if this is an entirely fair assessment.  Many different people seem to have offered answers to this and similar questions from different angles to try and present a comprehensive answer (I myself learned some new things from this discussion).  But the only answer that seems like it would satisfy the questioner is something outrageous along the lines of "Here is a photo of an icon from the first century, along with a treatise written by the Apostle Silas describing the apostolic theology of icons and how to venerate them...you'll notice the same procedure outlined in the Jordanville Prayer Book nineteen centuries later".  Absent this, his attitude seems to be that icons are just plain old idolatry.  All manner of Youtube videos making outrageous claims with flimsy evidence are acceptable when they fit his narrative, but the moment something doesn't, the only way to prove it is to pull a first century example out of your hat.  Nonsense. 

Exactly. In this case the style of argument I complemented was an appropriate, and long overdue, response to a poster who has rejected the Orthodox church, which is his right, but who keeps coming back here asking variants of the same question repeatedly.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 12:11:19 AM
Or how about this challenge. I want historical proof from the 1th century proving that Christ truly ascended into heaven.

Sometimes the measures can cause a problem, not the answer.

Is it not proof enough to at least point out the cherubims on the ark. Or do the jew now need to present the ark to prove that point to be a true one?

If we would find an icon from the 1th century, then suddenly the challenge could be what it depicted. If it was the sign of Jonah, and the orthodox church does not have that icon today, anywhere, then it all must be heresy right :P

The difference is these things were WRITTEN about in the scriptures.

Icons at the time of the apostles were NOT written about.

Many, many things were not written about. St. Paul mentions this when he tells the people to hold to what he has taught in his epistles and by his words. Or do you imagine he only communicated in writing, even when he writes that for a long time he pleaded with people, warning them that heretics would appear who would say things like "God should not be depicted in holy icons."

I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....
No, the one St. (II) Peter (3) warned about:
Quote
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God
(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

Deuteronomy 4:
9Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;
10Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.
11And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.
12And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
13And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
14And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
15Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
16Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

So let's see:
Yes. Let's.

1) No proof of 1st century Christians venerating or using icons in the church - Check
1) Proof of 1st century Christians believing that they saw not only the image and similtude, but the Face of He Who spoke out of the darkness and fire of Horeb:
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." I Corinthians 10:1-4


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1.

"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:3-9

"Jesus said to them "Amen! Amen! I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8521/8509410242_fc56897e7f_z.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Christ_Icon_Sinai_6th_century.jpg)
Check.

2) Disobeying the 1st Commandment, making an image in the likeness of things in heaven - Check
2) Obeying the 1st Commandment, having no other god before God, and obeying the 2nd Commandment seeing the image ("ICON") of Him Whom the Heavens could not hold.

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:6-9

"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son:  In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness of deity dwell" Colossians 1:12-19
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cKd-ECjVmCo/USAr202ofeI/AAAAAAAAB4o/HvROl6cTP40/s1600/platytera.JPG)
Check.
(btw, the prohibition against idolatry is the 2nd commandment)

3) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and serving them - Check
3) Obeying the 1st Commandment and serving Him.

"And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light.And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if Thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face," Matthew 2-5
(http://www.lacopts.org/sites/default/files/Transfiguration%20Icon%20NEW%20copy.jpg)
Check.

4) Disobeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to them - Check
4) Obeying the 1st Commandment and bowing down to Him.

"And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him." Matthew 2:11.
(http://www.stchrysostomoscrafts.com/photos/Christmas%20Nativity%20Prints/Print-I.JPG)
Check.

Only proves we cannot go far from the apostles, if we are to learn what they  believed.

Because what they received, what they taught, what they passed on, what we stand firm in, what raditions we hold which were taught by the Apostles, whether by word, or by letter (II Thessalonians 2:15), what we-remembering them in all things, receiving their praise-hold firm, what traditions, even as the Apostles delivered to us (I Corinthians 11:2), because THAT differs from what those who walketh disorderly millennia after, and not after the Tradition which he received of the Apostles-Or rather, such novelties differ from the 'Faith of the Apostles-because of that differnce we are to hide our eyes from the unbroken cloud of witness which surround the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, so we can don the veil of Moses and walk in the way of the Pharisees? So we can follow someone who not only has not seen the light of Christ, but refuses to behold the radience of God's glory and look in the face of Christ, the icon of the invisible God and the express image of His person, and see the Father? (John 14:9; 2Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3)?

No thank you.

Mat. 15:14  "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Or into hellfire, whose gates shall never, by the divine word of God the Word, prevail against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.

2Cor. 4:4But even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the icon of God, should shine on them. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

So, for us who have received the Apostles, we withdraw, as the Apostles commanded, from those that walk disorderly, and from those who do not walk after the Tradition which were received of the Apostles. II Thessalonians 3:6.

Since Mr. Persson wears the veil of Moses, he is not able to see beyond it, not even able to see the identification in the OT of Samuel on this side of the veil between this world and the next. Yet he fancies himself a Dante, mapping out the next world as if he had insider information. But (Mat. 13:)"35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
      “ I will open My mouth in parables;
       I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world."
...All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,...(13:)9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” 10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you [i.e. His Church, taught by the successors of the Apostles, the bishops] to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given...33 Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.”

The leaven of Apostolic dogma has risen in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is all leavened and fills all the earth. But Mr Persson has not“take[n] heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees," (Mat. 16:6, 12) citing their Talmud here as elsewhere, and prefering their Masoretic Text, not heading the Apostles' warning (I Corin. 5:) that "6[his] glorying is not good...not know[ing] that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" and that he should "7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that [he] may be a new lump." The Apostles are "indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit,"-having passed on the Spirit of prophecy in the laying on of their hands on the Orthodox Catholic bishops-"have already judged (as though [they] were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us" something the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church centers our year on but I fear Mr. Persson does not celebrate "8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The invitation is open, but Mr. Persson chooses to reject Scripture and turn down the invitation. "8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is." Gal. 5.

29The Spirit told Philip [who, like the bishops, had the Apostles hand laid on him, Acts 6:5-6; II Timoty 1:6-7; Titus 1:5-6], "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

 30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.

 31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?"

But Mr. Persson does not believe this Scripture.
 
He reads and does not believe what he reads, so he doesn't have a clue what the Bible says.

We read the Bible and believe what the Church which wrote, canonized and preserved the Bible says, and the Fathers who testified for the Church in explaining the Scripture, standng firm and holding fast to the Traditions taught by the Apostles, whether by word or letter (II Thess. 2:15), so we know what the Bible says.

With God all things are possible, but the man Alfred Persson kicks against the goads, trying to make it impossible with his man made tradition, making God's way difficult, holding fast to any crooked ways, putting every obstacle to God reigning in his heart as Sovereign...one of the many voices sent by those preaching another Gospel.

Paul we know, and Christ we know, but, as Marc and the rest of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ask "who are you again?"

But I am the fool.
But not Christ's.

I really hope you see my cause of concern here.  Simply look at that photo & READ THE COMMANDMENT.
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.
Just every Church ever discovered before the 4th century has them.

And the catacombs, which are full of them, went out of use in the 4th century.  By the 10th century, they were all but forgotten, a hidden surprise for the iconoclast Protestants a century after the Reformation.

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

You are following the Pharisee Saul, not St. Paul.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 01:39:38 AM
This one might help.

http://silouanthompson.net/2008/11/paralytic-dura-europos/

The problem with that is no one really knows whose church the one in Dura-Europos was. For all anyone can really claim, it might've been a gnostic sect.
Hardly.  Fragments of Eucharist prayers comparable to those of the Didache were found.  And the gnostics had a big problem with the Eucharist, as St. Ignatius and others attest.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: orthonorm on June 19, 2013, 02:19:59 AM
But let's go with the logic of jesusiamism.

They tell us that among the Wonders of the World was an enormous idol of Zeus at Olympia.
(http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia.jpg)
I've been to Olympia.  I didn't see it:
(http://holylandarchive.com/section_images/282_TempleZeusMap040727.jpg)

Another was the great Temple of Artemus
(http://intranet.arc.miami.edu/rjohn/images/HellenisticBuildingTypes/Later%20Temple%20of%20Artemis%20Turkey%20Ephesus.jpg)(http://threelittlebairds.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/img_3420.jpg)
I've been to Ephesus. I didn't see it.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Ephesus_temple_of_Artemis.jpg)

Another was the Mauseleum (the tomb and shrine of Mausolus) of Halicarnassus:
(http://www.javierjimenezonline.com/images5/mau1.jpg)
I've been to Halicarnassus. I didn't see it.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Mausoleum_of_Halicarnassus_2009.jpg)

Another was the Colossus of Helios/Apollo of Rhodes:
(http://www.rodos.com/rhodes-tn/images/colossus-rh.jpg)
I haven't been to Rhodes, but it doesn't matter: I wouldn't see it.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_016Z7b_q840/TLpXjnfeYQI/AAAAAAAAACM/RKrlRq1LCkw/s1600/Colossus+of+Rhodes-2.jpg)

Another was the Lighthouse of Pharos in Alexandria, topped by an image of Poseidon/Neptune:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/PHAROS2006.jpg/220px-PHAROS2006.jpg)
I've been to Alexandria.  I didn't see it.
(http://tourism.egypt.com/cache/articletestfld/specialarticleisland_of_pharos.jpg)

The Pharoahs, who were worshipped as gods, built the oldest wonder of the world (and the only ones still standing), the Pyramids, to enshrine their relics:
(http://ancientburial.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/img_6895.jpg)
I've been inside the Great Pyramid.  No royal mummy to be seen.
(http://www.sacredsitesjourneys.com/Images/Egypt/Egypt-Giza-GreatPyramidKingsChamber-Box4.jpg)
Herodotus, who made up the list of the Wonders, visited in the Fifth cent. BC.  He describes the pyramids, but doesn't say a thing about the Great Sphinx.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Sphinx_and_pyramids_of_Giza_panorama.jpg)
I guess it wasn't there in the Fifth Century BC.  Which is odd, given that it is carved out of a limestone outcropping that predates the pyramids, and between its paws lies an image of Thutmoses (1401–1391 BC) a millenium before worshiping it.
(http://ib205.tripod.com/18th_dynasty/tuthmosis_4/sphinx-1.gif)

Soooo, using your "logic," I must conclude that the ancient pagans didn't worship idols, or have images.  After all, if their most famous examples don't exist, why should I believe they ever existed?

LOL!

Classic.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: orthonorm on June 19, 2013, 02:24:07 AM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Really just one post was excellent (up to your post), let's not get crazy. I have a feeling though I have a few more from Isa to laugh with.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Agia Marina on June 19, 2013, 03:50:40 AM
Soooo, using your "logic," I must conclude that the ancient pagans didn't worship idols, or have images.  After all, if their most famous examples don't exist, why should I believe they ever existed?
+1   ;)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: primuspilus on June 19, 2013, 09:59:41 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSs-9pOkM8Qy-t7C2xNr2HHXGy66qW04hubMLLSautG1YJ3AxM_PQ)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 10:16:16 AM
Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.

I don't know what happened during the years of my absence from this forum, but from my total time here, I don't know if this is an entirely fair assessment.  Many different people seem to have offered answers to this and similar questions from different angles to try and present a comprehensive answer (I myself learned some new things from this discussion).  But the only answer that seems like it would satisfy the questioner is something outrageous along the lines of "Here is a photo of an icon from the first century, along with a treatise written by the Apostle Silas describing the apostolic theology of icons and how to venerate them...you'll notice the same procedure outlined in the Jordanville Prayer Book nineteen centuries later".  Absent this, his attitude seems to be that icons are just plain old idolatry.  All manner of Youtube videos making outrageous claims with flimsy evidence are acceptable when they fit his narrative, but the moment something doesn't, the only way to prove it is to pull a first century example out of your hat.  Nonsense. 
I have to concur with your diagnosis on our physician who cannot heal himself.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: primuspilus on June 19, 2013, 10:18:06 AM
Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.

I don't know what happened during the years of my absence from this forum, but from my total time here, I don't know if this is an entirely fair assessment.  Many different people seem to have offered answers to this and similar questions from different angles to try and present a comprehensive answer (I myself learned some new things from this discussion).  But the only answer that seems like it would satisfy the questioner is something outrageous along the lines of "Here is a photo of an icon from the first century, along with a treatise written by the Apostle Silas describing the apostolic theology of icons and how to venerate them...you'll notice the same procedure outlined in the Jordanville Prayer Book nineteen centuries later".  Absent this, his attitude seems to be that icons are just plain old idolatry.  All manner of Youtube videos making outrageous claims with flimsy evidence are acceptable when they fit his narrative, but the moment something doesn't, the only way to prove it is to pull a first century example out of your hat.  Nonsense. 
I have to concur with your diagnosis on our physician who cannot heal himself.
Par for the course 'round these parts.

PP
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 10:37:46 AM
I say icons were not part of the earliest church at all, as I have never been able to find a record or writing of them from early on.   I've searched so many early writings.. Nothing.

How do you define "earliest church?" Your likely answer, combined with the implied assumption that the "earliest church" is the criterion of faith, would cause problems as even if one were to grant that icons weren't part of the "earliest church," other things like the completed New Testament itself wouldn't be part of the "earliest church." Since hey, no writings saying these 27 works are the dogmatic compilation of post-OT Scripture are found from time of the apostles. Right?

I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity.
Too bad you live in the 21st century.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 11:42:50 AM
I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Alexorig.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Alexamenos_trazo.png)
I don't know if jesusisiamism accepts independent evidence as proof. (btw, at the LATEST, this grafitto dates two centuries after the Crucifixion, and might just be one century after, or even less).

Maybe jesusisiam can pitch his views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Seminar
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 11:45:23 AM
When was the idea of Christ introduced and can it be proven?  I don't want legends from the so-called gospels or later additions to Josephus or made-up tradition.  DNA evidence is preferable.  If you have videotapes of any of his miracles, that would help me out too.  I also accept live-streaming of any of his sermons. Also, it might help me out if we could get Jesus' thoughts on calling His mom the Theotokos, anybody have any recordings on that?  ::)
You mean, the Jesus film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(1979_film)
isn't a home movie?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 12:05:28 PM
When was the idea of Christ introduced and can it be proven?  I don't want legends from the so-called gospels or later additions to Josephus or made-up tradition.  DNA evidence is preferable.  If you have videotapes of any of his miracles, that would help me out too.  I also accept live-streaming of any of his sermons. Also, it might help me out if we could get Jesus' thoughts on calling His mom the Theotokos, anybody have any recordings on that?  ::)

I'm usually all for mocking as a way to get a point across, but in this case it seems like he has serious questions and really wants to be able to be Orthodox. There is nothing wrong asking for reasonable evidence to back the claim that icon painting comes directly from Christ and the apostles. I would claim no such thing. But maybe I'm wrong in that. If it needs to be proven as true and we have enough historical evidence to verify other practices, it seems reasonable to be able to provide some evidence for this. I think that the framework is there for imagery in worship settings in the temple and at early Christian gathering sites, but he seems to want evidence of people bowing before and kissing images in the early centuries. I personally don't think anyone's gonna find it because I don't think anyone was doing it.
It's not like they were rubbing themselves with the Apostles' napkins or anything.  Acts 19:12

The problem with jesusisiam's conscience is that he credits it and its "knowledge" more than the wisdom and fidelity of the Church. Ever since Lucifer's tumble down to Satan, Pride hath come before a fall.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: orthonorm on June 19, 2013, 12:27:13 PM
I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Alexorig.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Alexamenos_trazo.png)
I don't know if jesusisiamism accepts independent evidence as proof. (btw, at the LATEST, this grafitto dates two centuries after the Crucifixion, and might just be one century after, or even less).

Maybe jesusisiam can pitch his views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Seminar

Wow. Never saw this before.

The Classics department at one University I was at had a collection of a lot of graffiti from antiquity. Nothing much different than you would find scrawled on a men's bathroom stall.

This is crazy. Thanks.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Fabio Leite on June 19, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
God ordered we venerate His image in ourselves when He ordered chastisty.

God ordered the construction of images of Heaven in the Temple and on the Ark, made His own Presence there, and ordered that His Presence should be venerated there.

God shows the difference between God-oriented veneration and idolatry in the case of healing serpent of bronze of Moses. God orders veneration of the serpent for the healing of the people, God destroys the image when it turns into idolatry. So you have images that were rightfully venerated in the Temple, images that were worshipped (the Golden Calf) and a pedagogical example where one turns into the other, so we would be able to differentiate, neither denying the first, nor falling into the second.

Revelations is filled with liturgical imagery and it's an entirely visual book. Although divinely inspired, in its form it's clearly the product of a religious environment that is primarily visual and liturgical.

Further, in visions and dreams Gods makes His presence and will known through speech *and* icons. Although most certainly the ways of veneration have changed over the centuries, it was always a God-inspired tradition.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
There are the Dura-Europos Church which is from the think century. I also find this interesting (without being able to say anything about it's Scientific value:
Quote
A general assumption that Early Christianity was generally aniconic, opposed to religious imagery in both theory and practice, has been challenged by Paul Corby Finney's analysis of Early Christian writing and material remains (1994). This distinguishes three different sources of attitudes affecting Early Christians on the issue: "first that humans could have a direct vision of God; second that they could not; and, third, that although humans could see God they were best advised not to look, and were strictly forbidden to represent what they had seen". These derived respectively from Greek and Near Eastern pagan religions, from Ancient Greek philosophy, and from the Jewish tradition and the Old Testament. Of the three, Finney concludes that "overall, Israel's aversion to sacred images influenced early Christianity considerably less than the Greek philosophical tradition of invisible deity apophatically defined", so placing less emphasis on the Jewish background of most of the first Christians than most traditional accounts.[8] Finney suggests that "the reasons for the non-appearance of Christian art before 200 have nothing to do with principled aversion to art, with other-worldliness, or with anti-materialism. The truth is simple and mundane: Christians lacked land and capital. Art requires both. As soon as they began to acquire land and capital, Christians began to experiment with their own distinctive forms of art".[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture
His third source of attitudes faces the problem that as synagogues predating 313 have been unearthed, they have had iconography, including the one down the street from the Dura Europas Church.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 12:59:37 PM
What i wanted to say was just that the thing that helped me in my journey towards iconography was looking on the truth matter, not history matter. Iconography was coined publicly as the church got so thanks to Constantine, but the understanding was there before, even long way back to the ark of the covenant.

Back in the early church a priest/monk could worship and love God much more just by watching the waves of the sea. If was need icons today, and the church can declare and prove it truthful, then history does not matter.

Forgive me if i point out some examples or questions. But the bible and its content/message can´t withstand the test we many times put forth on iconography. The texts and its entirety was kept through tradition, or else someone need to give me a new testament written 10 years after Christs death for me to believe it. No rather the truth within it is what matters, not where I can find the earliest copy. Same standard goes with it all, including icons.

If the EO worship in 100 years only would consist of prayer, 24 hours a day, among 100% of EO believers. What would the one seeking for 100% praying Christians say when he/she couldn´t find that through history. Is praying 24 hours a day then wrong?

That inlays another problem for another thread.  Constantine.... Yes, St. Constantine - murdered over 200k people AFTER Nicea.  Go check other threads.

And you keep killing that poor dead horse. How can you expect to be a saint?

Hey if a man who kills 200k people after his conversion to Christianity can be venerated on put on an iconostasis.......   Oh nevermind.  :P

200.000? I find that hard to believe.
don't let facts get in the way of the narrative.  Like the fact that St. Constantine could have been dumped after his death by his generation, like Stalin rightly was.

200,000, btw, would be about 5% of the population.  Stalin at most killed 10%, perhaps as low as 5%.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 19, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
No, iconodules were murdered by iconoclasts.  Read history, not revisionism.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: primuspilus on June 20, 2013, 07:44:20 AM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 23, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.  Why else do I ask for it so much?  Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....   Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Nephi on June 23, 2013, 10:57:47 PM
There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.

Then did you make this thread for any other reason than to argue?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheMathematician on June 23, 2013, 11:04:57 PM
In the earliest Christian Church, as you put it, what need would there to be icons? The death of Christ was still recent, and many of the disciples still knew Him firsthand, so why write icons of someone that way in your midst(as a living breathing person, ignoring everything else).
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 23, 2013, 11:16:59 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.  Why else do I ask for it so much?  Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....   Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Seraphim98 on June 23, 2013, 11:29:39 PM
The Scriptures say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth.

If the Orthodox Church is the Church in historical and spiritual continuity with the Apostles then this matter lies within her authority. She exercised that authority at the 7th Council to consider all these matters…the same authority used by the Church in Acts 15 to settle the questions surrounding the teachings of the Judaizers.  At the 7th council the boundaries with which images could be made and used within the Church were established, and various misuses discouraged and condemned.

The only essential question here is not what did the first century Church do…but rather what did the Church do with respect to the question of images. The Church, like her Head is not bound in Time, but is rather bound together by the Spirit across all ages both past and yet to come.  The Church, in the Spirit made a decision on this question. One accepts it or rejects it…but if you reject it, then wittingly or not you reject Christ as well as His Bride in to whose hands He committed this question.

If you protest the Council was not a Council of the Church then where did the "true" Church disappear to for several centuries. Did it go invisible all of a sudden after nearly a 1000 years of being historical and visible?  Where is this Church today? Can it still speak with the same authority as did the Church of the 7 councils?

If you admit the 7th Council was a Council of the Church, then you cannot escape the authority of that council and its canons upon the faith for all Christians of every age.  The Church has spoken on this issue. The matter was resolved and peace restored to the Church after 150 years of turmoil and persecution.

There is no appeal to a first or second century Church. The Church is one. It has one life just like there is but one life in ontological continuity between a seed and the cornstalk. The stalk may resemble the seed outwardly very little if at all…but inwardly it is the same…the same life, the same DNA unfolding and growing, and reproducing according to it's kind.  So…does the Orthodox Church reproduce in kind with the Apostolic Church? Does it still produce holy lives of transfigured men and women from that day till this of Apostolic character?  So, unless we suddenly have been bereft of Holy Elders and Living Saints in this age, then it is self evident the Orthodox Church still reproduces in kind, and thus show it is the Church in ontological continuity with the Apostles.

That Church has spoken. And according to the Apocalypse the Spirt and Bride speak as one. The matter is settled. Your choice is only to accept and honor that authority or deny and dishonor it and thus the one Who gave that authority.  I see no other reasonable option.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 23, 2013, 11:38:32 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.
No, you do not.
Why else do I ask for it so much?
To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.
Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)
The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....
Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.
And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 23, 2013, 11:39:25 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.  Why else do I ask for it so much?  Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....   Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?
he worships a god of the gaps, thinking he can fill them in.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on June 24, 2013, 01:21:17 AM
We proclaim Christ also by our senses on all sides, and we sanctify the noblest sense, which is that of sight. The image is a memorial, just what words are to a listening ear. What a book is to the literate, that an image is to the illiterate. The image speaks to the sight as words to the ear; it brings us understanding. Hence God ordered the ark to be made of imperishable wood, and to be gilded outside and in, and the tablets to be put in it, and the staff and the golden urn containing the manna, for a remembrance of the past and a type of the future. Who can say these were not images and far-sounding heralds? And they did not hang on the walls of the tabernacle; but in sight of all the people who looked towards them, they were brought forward for the worship and adoration of God, who made use of them.  It is evident that they were not worshipped for themselves, but that the people were led through them to remember past signs, and to worship the God of wonders.They were images to serve as recollections, not divine, but leading to divine things by divine power.

[20] And God ordered twelve stones to be taken out of the Jordan, and specified why. For he says: "When your son asks you the meaning of these stones, tell him how the water left the Jordan by the divine command, and how the ark was saved and the whole people." (Jos. 4.21-22) How, then, shall we not record on image the saving pains and wonders of Christ our Lord, so that when my child asks me, "What is this?" I may say, that God the Word became man, and that for His sake not Israel alone passed through the Jordan, but all the human race gained their original happiness. Through Him human nature rose from the lowest depths of the earth higher than the skies, and in His Person sat down on the throne His Father had prepared for Him.

From In Defense of the Holy Images. Indeed, there's nothing St John of Damascus can't answer.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on June 24, 2013, 01:29:29 AM
More from St John, from the same treatise:

Behold, then, matter is honoured, and you dishonour it. What is more insignificant than goat's hair, or colours, and are not violet and purple and scarlet colours? And the likeness of the cherubim are the work of man's hand, and the tabernacle itself from first to last was an image. "Look," said God to Moses, "and make it according to the pattern that was shown thee in the Mount," (Ex. 25.40) and it was adored by the people of Israel in a circle. And, as to the cherubim, were they not in sight of the people? And did not the people look at the ark, and the lamps, and the table, the golden urn and the staff, and adore? It is not matter which I adore; it is the Lord of matter, becoming matter for my sake, taking up His abode in matter and working out my salvation through matter. For "the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us." (Jn. 1.14)

It is evident to all that flesh is matter, and that it is created. I reverence and honour matter, and worship that which has brought about my salvation. I [73] honour it, not as God, but as a channel of divine strength and grace. Was not the thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? and the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary? Was not the holy sepulchre matter, the life-giving stone the source of our resurrection? Was not the book of the Gospels matter, and the holy table which gives us the bread of life? Are not gold and silver matter, of which crosses, and holy pictures, and chalices are made? And above all, is not the Lord's Body and Blood composed of matter? Either reject the honor and worship of all these things, or conform to ecclesiastical tradition, sanctifying the worship of images in the name of God and of God's friends, and so obeying the grace of the Divine Spirit.

If you give up images on account of the law, you should also keep the Sabbath and be circumcised, for these are severely inculcated by it. You should observe all the law, and not celebrate the Lord's Passover out of Jerusalem. But you must know that if you observe the law, Christ will profit you nothing. (Gal. 5.2) You are ordered to marry your brother's wife, and so carry on his name, (Deut. 25.5ff) and not to sing the song of the Lord in a strange land. (Ps. 137.4) Enough of this! [74] "Those who have been justified by the law have fallen from grace." (Gal. 5.4)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: orthonorm on June 24, 2013, 03:41:00 AM
Why do you color the citation blue? It sorta makes its hard on the eyes to read.

For those who care the simplest solution is cut and paste of course.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 03:46:31 AM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: john_mo on June 24, 2013, 04:53:31 AM
In the earliest Christian Church, as you put it, what need would there to be icons? The death of Christ was still recent, and many of the disciples still knew Him firsthand, so why write icons of someone that way in your midst(as a living breathing person, ignoring everything else).

Hey easy there, fella!  Don't forget that "Faith" is about finding the things you like from each religion and customizing it to suit your own individualistic taste(s).  Just jumble it all together!   It's basically a postmodernists wet-dream.  

In that respect, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the things you don't like about Orthodoxy, never really happened at all!  After all, if something really happened, there would be well documented evidence to support it.  This is especially true for the first century Church, which had plenty of time and resources to leave a detailed, secure record of all their practices and the meaning behind them.  If they wanted us to venerate icons, they wouldn't have left it to mere Tradition, right?

Oh yeah, and the Church has no authority to introduce other forms of worship that were not around in the first two centuries.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 24, 2013, 05:11:03 AM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on June 24, 2013, 05:17:59 AM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D

They're your words ialmisry's quoting, Jason. Or are you denying you said them?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: lovetzatziki on June 24, 2013, 05:24:24 AM
A more serious but necessary challenge could be. Prove me that there was even a church existing in the 1th century.  

"I´m a historian, so your religious, traditional and fairy tale bible is not proof". I want more than that.

Yet we instantly accept as christians the fact that the church existed in the 1th century, not because the historian say yes or no on the matter. But because Christ promised it and he is the truth.

I thought the Bible as any written manuscript from the 1st century / 2nd century qualifies as a certified historical artefact of that time.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: lovetzatziki on June 24, 2013, 05:29:49 AM
I keep doing it, an NOBODY has EVER shown me an icon from the 1st century of the church.  Period.  Nor are there any writings of it on the 1st century of the church.

Can you point to a surviving manuscript from the New Testament from the first century? I don't think any manuscripts have survived from that period either.

I heard the same, that the original manuscripts of the New Testament did not survive. We don't have any original manuscripts of the Bible today. Just copies of copies.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 24, 2013, 05:34:34 AM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D

They're your words ialmisry's quoting, Jason. Or are you denying you said them?

I'm not denying I said them. Its just funny (sad) he trawled through 1044 posts to re-post a bunch of things in different threads in response to me making him mad and some weird vendetta that seems to be developing.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on June 24, 2013, 06:19:15 AM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D

They're your words ialmisry's quoting, Jason. Or are you denying you said them?

I'm not denying I said them. Its just funny (sad) he trawled through 1044 posts to re-post a bunch of things in different threads in response to me making him mad and some weird vendetta that seems to be developing.

He wouldn't have needed to trawl through your every post. All he would have needed to do is a search on a keyword or phrase he knows you've used, and do a search, specifying your user name in the search.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: lovetzatziki on June 24, 2013, 06:24:13 AM
Quote
After the death and resurrection of Christ the new faith spread rapidly throughout the Roman world and the Near East. The stories of the Apostles and early witnesses who had seen and known Christ Himself were eagerly listened to by the converts to the new faith. Naturally, people who had seen Christ asked for descriptions of His appearance. At some point people began to create and distribute paintings of Christ. This also included his disciples and the reall martyrs of the Christian faith. The earliest images we know of was a statue of Christ which Eusebius, an important early Christian bishop, says had been set up in Caesarea-Phillipi (Paneaus) by the woman healed by Christ of an issue of blood. He also notes that in his time there were very ancient images of Peter and Paul.

However, the church was somewhat divided about images of Christ.
Eusebius refused to send the wife of Caesar Callus an image of Christ, for he thought it is idolatrous and a violation of Biblical injunctions. Some regional churches were against images as well, a local Spanish synod in 305 said images in churches were forbidden. However, the number of examples of paintings of the nativity and allegories of the Good Shepherd from around 250 AD, show how common Christian paintings had already become. The growth of images was concurrent with the development of the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ and is closely tied to the growing awareness of this essential element of the Christian faith.

In early Christian times there were two images of Christ that were more or less standardized. One was of a young, idealized and clean shaven "hero" type. The second was the image we are familiar with today - a man in his late 20's or early 30's with long hair tied at the back, a smooth beard,

 
 http://www.kurskroot.com/history_of_icons.html

Quote
The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the late 2nd to early 4th centuries on the walls of tombs belonging, most likely, to wealthy[6] Christians in the catacombs of Rome, although from literary evidence there may well have been panel icons which, like almost all classical painting, have disappeared.
Initially Jesus was represented indirectly by pictogram symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), the peacock, or an anchor (the Labarum or Chi-Rho was a later development). Later personified symbols were used, including Jonah, whose three days in the belly of the whale pre-figured the interval between Christ's death and Resurrection; Daniel in the lion's den; or Orpheus charming the animals.[7] The Tomb of the Julii has a famous but unique mosaic of Christ as Sol Invictus, a sun-god.[8] The image of "The Good Shepherd", a beardless youth in pastoral scenes collecting sheep, was the most common of these images, and was probably not understood as a portrait of the historical Jesus at this period.[9] It continues the classical Kriophoros, and in some cases may also represent the Shepherd of Hermas, a popular Christian literary work of the 2nd century.[10]
Among the earliest depictions clearly intended to directly represent Jesus himself are many showing him as a baby, usually held by his mother, especially in the Adoration of the Magi, seen as the first theophany, or display of the incarnate Christ to the world at large.[11] The oldest known portrait of Jesus, found in Syria and dated to about 235, shows him as a beardless young man of authoritative and dignified bearing. He is depicted dressed in the style of a young philosopher, with close-cropped hair and wearing a tunic and pallium – signs of good breeding in Greco-Roman society. From this, it is evident that some early Christians paid no heed to the historical context of Jesus being a Jew and visualised him solely in terms of their own social context, as a quasi-heroic figure, without supernatural attributes such as a halo (a fourth-century innovation).
From the 3rd century onwards, the first narrative scenes from the Life of Christ to be clearly seen are the Baptism of Christ, painted in a catacomb in about 200,[18] and the miracle of the Raising of Lazarus,[19] both of which can be clearly identified by the inclusion of the dove of the Holy Spirit in Baptisms, and the vertical, shroud-wrapped body of Lazarus. Other scenes remain ambiguous – an agape feast may be intended as a Last Supper, but before the development of a recognised physical appearance for Christ, and attributes such as the halo, it is impossible to tell, as tituli or captions are rarely used. There are some surviving scenes from Christ's Works of about 235 from the Dura Europos church on the Persian frontier of the Empire. During the 4th century a much greater number of scenes came to be depicted,[20] usually showing Christ as youthful, beardless and with short hair that does not reach his shoulders, although there is considerable variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

Quote

Rome, Catacombs of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter – Noah in the Ark   
There are also representations of the young people of Babylonia rescued from the flames of the furnace, Susan saved from the snares of the elders, Noah who escaped the flood, and Daniel who stayed unharmed in the lions’ den.

From the New Testament, the miracles are chosen of healing (the blind man, the paralytic, the hemorrhaging woman) and resurrection (Lazarus, the widow of Naim’s son, Jairus’ daughter), but also other episodes, such as the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well and the multiplication of the loaves.

Rome, Catacombs of St. Sebastian – Funeral inscription with symbols   
The art of the catacombs is also a symbolic art in the sense that some concepts which are difficult to express are represented in a simple way. To indicate Christ a fish is depicted; to signify the peace of heaven a dove is represented; to express firmness of faith an anchor is drawn. On the closing slabs of the loculi, symbols with different meanings are often engraved. In some cases, a tool is depicted which indicates the dead person’s trade in life. Some symbols, such as glasses, loaves of bread and amphorae, allude to the funeral meals consumed in honor of the deceased, the so-called refrigeria. Most of the symbols refer to eternal salvation, such as the dove, the palm, the peacock, the phoenix and the lamb.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – Our Lady with the Prophet

The catacombs and the Mother of God. In the Roman catacombs the most ancient image is preserved of Our Lady who is depicted in a painting in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The fresco, which can be dated back to the first half of the third century, depicts the Virgin with the Child on her knees in front of a prophet (perhaps Balaam or Isaiah) who is pointing to a star to refer to the messianic prediction. In the catacombs other episodes with Our Lady are also represented such as the Adoration of the Magi and scenes from the Christmas crib, but it is thought that prior to the Council of Ephesus, all these representations had a Christological and not a Mariological significance.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd in the catacombs. One of the images represented the most in the art of the catacombs is the Good Shepherd. While the model is taken from pagan culture, it immediately takes on a Christological significance inspired by the parable of the lost sheep. Christ is thus represented as a humble shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders as he watches over his little flock that is sometimes made up of only two sheep placed at his sides.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/archeo/inglese/documents/rc_com_archeo_doc_20011010_cataccrist_en.html#Arte

Quote
The Catacombs of Rome (Italian: Catacombe di Roma) are ancient catacombs, underground burial places under Rome, Italy, of which there are at least forty, some discovered only in recent decades. Though most famous for Christian burials, either in separate catacombs or mixed together, they began in the 2nd century,[1] much as a response to overcrowding and shortage of land. Many scholars have written that catacombs came about to help persecuted Christians to bury their dead secretly. The soft volcanic tuff rock under Rome is highly suitable for tunnelling, as it is softer when first exposed to air, hardening afterwards. Many have kilometres of tunnels, in up to four storeys (or layers).
The Christian catacombs are extremely important for the art history of early Christian art, as they contain the great majority of examples from before about 400 AD, in fresco and sculpture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 24, 2013, 07:06:11 AM
lovetzatziki, truly the best name ever here on this forum ;P
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 01:56:56 PM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D
I barely spent five minutes on it.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 02:00:42 PM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D

They're your words ialmisry's quoting, Jason. Or are you denying you said them?

I'm not denying I said them. Its just funny (sad) he trawled through 1044 posts to re-post a bunch of things in different threads in response to me making him mad and some weird vendetta that seems to be developing.

He wouldn't have needed to trawl through your every post. All he would have needed to do is a search on a keyword or phrase he knows you've used, and do a search, specifying your user name in the search.
Odd that he should think I waste such time going through 1044 posts with such interest, when he doesn't devote such attention and interest to the Scriptures.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Schultz on June 24, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D

It's called research.  I half-remember things people write here all the time and then I go looking for it to a) make sure my memory is correct and b) quote it so others can remember it, as well.

It's not difficult to do, either.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: katherineofdixie on June 24, 2013, 02:15:18 PM
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jason.Wike on June 24, 2013, 02:30:01 PM
A veritable blitzkrieg of masterful argument!

Not really. All you guys have ever done for years now is say the above. "We're right, its clear!" as if that really meant something.
That is what I find most annoying... the people that want change are never happy to change themselves and allow others to remain the same, they insist on forcing it on everyone else. I guess it is the only way they feel legitimate.
The Faith was created by God, and people have no right or ability to change it, we must accept it as it is.

The other alternative is it has been created by people, and we have the right to change it. The problem here is that if the Faith is created according to the form of people's desires, it has no authority, there is no reason to accept it because it is not the truth - it is based on their own desires and not truth (ahem... Jeremiah 17:9).


(Sorry I was really trying to stay out of this thread)

Nice to see you trolling around for stuff to troll and you spent three hours on it. :D

They're your words ialmisry's quoting, Jason. Or are you denying you said them?

I'm not denying I said them. Its just funny (sad) he trawled through 1044 posts to re-post a bunch of things in different threads in response to me making him mad and some weird vendetta that seems to be developing.

He wouldn't have needed to trawl through your every post. All he would have needed to do is a search on a keyword or phrase he knows you've used, and do a search, specifying your user name in the search.
Odd that he should think I waste such time going through 1044 posts with such interest, when he doesn't devote such attention and interest to the Scriptures.

So you have (broken) ESP now? Wow. Anyway, the fact that this turned into a veiled ad hominem by dredging up tons of old posts and calling me a 'burn out' just shows no one here can create a rational response. Address the topic, not the person and all that stuff, that everyone else is expected to follow.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: lovetzatziki on June 24, 2013, 03:30:48 PM
Quote
Concerning the teaching of icons
Venerating icons, having them in churches and homes, is what the Church teaches. They are "open books to remind us of God." Those who lack the time or learning to study theology need only to enter a church to see the mysteries of the Christian religion unfolded before them.

Concerning the doctrinal significance of icons
Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature ("...no man has seen God", John 1:18), He can be depicted simply because He "became human and took flesh." Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.

I do not worship matter, but the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation... —St. John of Damascus

The seventh and last Ecumenical Council upheld the iconodules' postion in AD 787. They proclaimed: Icons... are to be kept in churches and honored with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols, such as the 'precious and life-giving Cross' and the Book of the Gospels. The 'doctrine of icons' is tied to the Orthodox teaching that all of God's creation is to be redeemed and glorified, both spiritual and material.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council

Quote
Proceedings of the Council

First Session (September 24, 787) -- Three bishops, Basilius of Ancyra, Theodore of Myra, and Theodosius of Amorium begged for pardon for the heresy of iconoclasm.

Second Session (September 26, 787) -- Papal legates read the letters of Pope Hadrian I asking for agreement with veneration of images, to which question the bishops of the council answered: "We follow, we receive, we admit".

Third Session (September 28, 787) -- Other bishops having made their abjuration, were received into the council.

Fourth Session (October 1, 787) -- Proof of the lawfulness of the veneration of icons was drawn from Exodus 25:19 sqq.; Numbers 7:89; Hebrews 9:5 sqq.; Ezekiel 41:18, and Genesis 31:34, but especially from a series of passages of the Church Fathers;[1] the authority of the latter was decisive.

Fifth Session (October 4, 787) -- It was claimed that the iconoclast heresy came originally from Jews, Saracens, and Manicheans.

Sixth Session (October 6, 787) -- The definition of the pseudo-Seventh council (754) was read and condemned.

Seventh Session (October 13, 787) -- The council issued a declaration of faith concerning the veneration of holy images:

Aya Sofya of Nicaea, where the Council took place; Iznik, Turkey. It was determined that "As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."

Eighth Session (October 23, 787) -- The last session was held in Constantinople at the Magnaura Palace. The Empress Irene and her son were present and they signed the document.

The clear distinction between the adoration offered to God, and that accorded to the images may well be looked upon as a result of the iconoclastic reform. However sculpture in the round was condemned as "sensual". The twenty-two canons[7] drawn up in Constantinople also served ecclesiastical reform. Careful maintenance of the ordinances of the earlier councils, knowledge of the scriptures on the part of the clergy, and care for Christian conduct are required, and the desire for a renewal of ecclesiastical life is awakened.

The council also decreed that every altar should contain a relic, which remains the case in modern Catholic and Orthodox regulations (Canon VII), and made a number of decrees on clerical discipline, especially for monks when mixing with women.

The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Hadrian I, who had it translated (the translation Anastasius later replaced with a better one).

This council is celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite as "The Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy" each year on the first Sunday of Great Lent the fast that leads up to Pascha (Easter) and again on the Sunday closest to October 11 (the Sunday on or after October 8). The former celebration commemorates the council as the culmination of the Church's battles against heresy, while the latter commemorates the council itself.
http://www.tutorgigpedia.com/ed/Second_Council_of_Nicaea

Quote
xtracts from the Acts

Session 1

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 53.)

[Certain bishops who had been led astray by the Iconoclasts came, asking to be received back. The first of these was Basil of Ancyra.]

The bishop Basil of Ancyra read as follows from a book: Inasmuch as ecclesiastical legislation has canonically been handed down from past time, even from the beginning from the holy Apostles, and from their successors, who were our holy fathers and teachers, and also from the six holy and ecumenical synods, and from the local synods which were gathered in the interests of orthodoxy, that those returning from any heresy whatever to the orthodox faith and to the tradition of the Catholic Church, might deny their own heresy, and confess the orthodox faith.

Wherefore I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority. And in this also I beg pardon from your divinely gathered holiness for my tardiness in this matter. For it was not right that I should have fallen behind in the confession of orthodoxy, but it arose from my entire lack of knowledge, and slothful and negligent mind in the matter. Wherefore the rather I ask your blessedness to grant me indulgence in God's sight.

I believe, therefore, and make my confession in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life. The Trinity, one in essence and one in majesty, must be worshipped and glorified in one godhead, power, and authority. I confess all things pertaining to the incarnation of one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, as the Saints and the six Ecumenical Synods have handed down. And I reject and anathematize every heretical babbling, as they also have rejected them. I ask for the intercessions (πρεσβείας) of our spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God, and those of the holy and heavenly powers, and those of all the Saints.
And receiving their holy and honourable relics with all honour (τιμῆς), I salute and venerate these with honour (τιμητικῶς προσκυνέω), hoping to have a share in their holiness. Likewise also the venerable images (εἰκόνας) of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the humanity he assumed for our salvation; and of our spotless Lady, the holy Mother of God; and of the angels like God; and of the holy Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and of all the Saints— the sacred images of all these, I salute and venerate— rejecting and anathematizing with my whole soul and mind the synod which was gathered together out of stubbornness and madness, and which styled itself the Seventh Synod, but which by those who think accurately was called lawfully and canonically a pseudo-synod, as being contrary to all truth and piety, and audaciously and temerariously against the divinely handed down ecclesiastical legislation, yea, even impiously having yelped at and scoffed at the holy and venerable images, and having ordered these to be taken away out of the holy churches of God; over which assembly presided Theodosius with the pseudonym of Ephesius, Sisinnius of Perga, with the surname Pastillas, Basilius of Pisidia, falsely called tricaccabus; with whom the wretched Constantine, the then Patriarch, was led (ἐματαιώθη) astray.

These things thus I confess and to these I assent, and therefore in simplicity of heart and in uprightness of mind, in the presence of God, I have made the subjoined anathematisms.

Anathema to the calumniators of the Christians, that is to the image breakers.

Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images.

Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.

Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as to gods.

Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.

Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images.

Anathema to those who say that another than Christ our Lord has delivered us from idols.

Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Anathema to those who dare to say that the Catholic Church has at any time sanctioned idols.

Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers.

This is my confession [of faith] and to these propositions I give my assent. And I pronounce this with my whole heart, and soul, and mind.

And if at any time by the fraud of the devil (which may God forbid!) I voluntarily or involuntarily shall be opposed to what I have now professed, may I be anathema from the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the Catholic Church and every hierarchical order a stranger.

I will keep myself from every acceptance of a bribe and from filthy lucre in accordance with the divine canons of the holy Apostles and of the approved Fathers.

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: This whole sacred gathering yields glory and thanks to God for this confession of yours, which you have made to the Catholic Church.

The Holy Synod said: Glory to God which makes one that which was severed.

[Theodore, bishop of Myra, then read the same confession, and was received. The next bishop who asked to be received read as follows: (col. 60)]

Theodosius, the humble Christian, to the holy and Ecumenical Synod: I confess and I agree to (συντίθεμαι) and I receive and I salute and I venerate in the first place the spotless image of our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, and the holy image of her who bore him without seed, the holy Mother of God, and her help and protection and intercessions each day and night as a sinner to my aid I call for, since she has confidence with Christ our God, as he was born of her. Likewise also I receive and venerate the images of the holy and most laudable Apostles, prophets, and martyrs and the fathers and cultivators of the desert. Not indeed as gods (God forbid!) do I ask all these with my whole heart to pray for me to God, that he may grant me through their intercessions to find mercy at his hands at the day of judgment, for in this I am but showing forth more clearly the affection and love of my soul which I have borne them from the first. Likewise also I venerate and honour and salute the relics of the Saints as of those who fought for Christ and who have received grace from him for the healing of diseases and the curing of sicknesses and the casting out of devils, as the Christian Church has received from the holy Apostles and Fathers even down to us today.

Moreover, I am well pleased that there should be images in the churches of the faithful, especially the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy Mother of God, of every kind of material, both gold and silver and of every colour, so that his incarnation may be set forth to all men. Likewise there may be painted the lives of the Saints and Prophets and Martyrs, so that their struggles and agonies may be set forth in brief, for the stirring up and teaching of the people, especially of the unlearned.

For if the people go forth with lights and incense to meet the laurata and images of the Emperors when they are sent to cities or rural districts, they honour surely not the tablet covered over with wax, but the Emperor himself. How much more is it necessary that in the churches of Christ our God, the image of God our Saviour and of his spotless Mother and of all the holy and blessed fathers and ascetics should be painted? Even as also St. Basil says: Writers and painters set forth the great deeds of war; the one by word, the other by their pencils; and each stirs many to courage. And again the same author How much pains have you ever taken that you might find one of the Saints who was willing to be your importunate intercessor to the Lord? And Chrysostom says, The charity of the Saints is not diminished by their death, nor does it come to an end with their exit from life, but after their death they are still more powerful than when they were alive, and many other things without measure. Therefore I ask you, O you Saints! I call out to you. I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. Receive me as God received the luxurious man, and the harlot, and the thief. Seek me out, as Christ sought out the sheep that was lost, which he carried on his shoulders; so that there may be joy in the presence of God and of his angels over my salvation and repentance, through your intervention, O all-holy lords! Let them who do not venerate the holy and venerable images be anathema! Anathema to those who blaspheme against the honourable and venerable images! To those who dare to attack and blaspheme the venerable images and call them idols, anathema! To the calumniators of Christianity, that is to say the Iconoclasts, anathema! To those who do not diligently teach all the Christ-loving people to venerate and salute the venerable and sacred and honourable images of all the Saints who pleased God in their several generations, anathema! To those who have a doubtful mind and do not confess with their whole hearts that they venerate the sacred images, anathema!

Sabbas, the most reverend hegumenus of the monastery of the Studium, said: According to the Apostolic precepts and the Ecumenical Synods he is worthy to be received back.

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: Those who formerly were the calumniators of orthodoxy, now have become the advocates of the truth.

[Near the end of this session, (col. 77)]

John, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Eastern high priests said: This heresy is the worst of all heresies. Woe to the iconoclasts! It is the worst of heresies, as it subverts the incarnation (οἰκονομίαν) of our Saviour.
Session 2

[The Papal Letters were presented by the Legates. First was read that to Constantine and Irene, but not in its entirety, if we may trust Anastasius the Librarian, who gives what he says is the original Latin text. Here follows a translation of this and of the Greek, also a translation of the Latin passage altogether omitted, (as we are told) with the consent of the Roman Legates.]

Part of Pope Hadrian's Letter.

[As written by the Pope.]

(Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVI., col. 1217.)

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.

[As read in Greek to the Council.]

(Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVI., col. 1218.)

If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.

[The part which was never read to the Council at all.]

(Found in L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 117.)

We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shows himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[After the reading was ended (col. 120)]

Tarasius the most holy patriarch said: Did you yourselves receive these letters from the most holy Pope, and did you carry them to our pious Emperor?

Peter and Peter the most beloved-of-God presbyters who held the place of Hadrian, the most holy pope of Rome, said: We ourselves received such letters from our apostolic father and delivered them to the pious lords.

John, the most magnificent Logothete, said: That this is the case is also known to the Sicilians, the beloved of God Theodore, the bishop of Catanea, and the most revered deacon Epiphanius who is with him, who holds the place of the archbishop of Sardinia. For both of these at the bidding of our pious Emperors, went to Rome with the most reverend apocrisarius of our most holy patriarch.

Theodore the God-beloved bishop of Catanea, standing in the midst, said: The pious emperor, by his honourable jussio, bid send Leo, the most god-beloved presbyter (who together with myself is a slave of your holiness), with the precious letter of his most sacred majesty; and he who reveres our [sic in Greek, your, in Latin] holiness, being the governor (στρατηγὸς) of my province of Sicily, sent me to Rome with the pious jussio of our orthodox Emperors.
And when we had gone, we announced the orthodox faith of the pious emperors.

And when the most blessed Pope heard it, he said: Since this has come to pass in the days of their reign, God has magnified their pious rule above all former reigns. And this suggestion (ἀναφορὰν) which has been read he sent to our most pious kings together with a letter to your holiness and with his vicars who are here present and presiding.

Cosmas, the deacon, notary, and chamberlain (Cubuclesius) said: And another letter was sent by the most holy Pope of Old Rome to Tarasius, our most holy and œcumenical Patriarch. Let it be disposed of as your holy assembly shall direct.

The Holy Synod said, Let it be read.

[Then was read Hadrian's letter to Tarasius of Constantinople, which ends by saying that, our dearly-loved proto-presbyter of the Holy Church of Rome, and Peter, a monk, a presbyter, and an abbot, who have been sent by us to the most tranquil and pious emperors, we beg you will deem them worthy of all kindness and humane amenity for the sake of St. Peter, coropheus of the Apostles, and for our sakes, so that for this we may be able to offer you our sincere thanks. The letter being ended (col. 128),]

Peter and Peter, the most reverend presbyters and representatives of the most holy Pope of Old Rome said: Let the most holy Tarasius, Patriarch of the royal city, say whether he agrees (στοιχεῖ) with the letters of the most holy Pope of Old Rome or not.

Tarasius the most holy patriarch said: The divine Apostle Paul, who was filled with the light of Christ, and who has begotten us through the gospel, in writing to the Romans, commending their zeal for the true faith which they had in Christ our true God, thus said: Your faith has gone forth into all the world. It is necessary to follow out this witness, and he that would contradict it is without good sense. Wherefore Hadrian, the ruler of Old Rome, since he was a sharer of these things, thus borne witness to, wrote expressly and truly to our religious Emperors, and to our humility, confirming admirably and beautifully the ancient tradition of the Catholic Church. And we also ourselves, having examined both in writing, and by inquisition, and syllogistically and by demonstration, and having been taught by the teachings of the Fathers, so have confessed, so do confess, and so will confess; and shall be fast, and shall remain, and shall stand firm in the sense of the letters which have just been read, receiving the imaged representations according to the ancient tradition of our holy fathers; and these we venerate with firmly-attached affection, as made in the name of Christ our God, and of our Spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God, and of the Holy Angels, and of all the Saints, most clearly giving our adoration and faith to the one only true God.

And the holy Synod said: The whole holy Synod thus teaches.

Peter and Peter, the God-loved presbyters and legates of the Apostolic See, said: Let the holy Synod say whether it receives the letters of the most holy Pope of Old Rome.

The holy Synod said: We follow, we receive, we admit them.

[The bishops then give one by one their votes all in the same sense.]

Session 3

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 188.)

Constantine, the most holy bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, said: Since I, unworthy that I am, find that the letter which has just been read, which was sent from the East to Tarasius the most holy archbishop and ecumenical patriarch, is in no sense changed from that confession of faith which he himself had before made, to these I consent and become of one mind, receiving and saluting with honour the holy and venerable images. But the worship of adoration I reserve alone to the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity. And those who are not so minded, and do not so teach I cast out of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and I smite them with anathema, and I deliver them over to the lot of those who deny the incarnation and the bodily economy of Christ our true God.

Session 4

[Among numerous passages of the Fathers one was read from a sermon by St. Gregory Nyssen in which he describes a painting representing the sacrifice of Isaac and tells how he could not pass it without tears.]

The most glorious princes said: See how our father grieved at the depicted history, even so that he wept.

Basil, the most holy bishop of Ancyra, said: Many times the father had read the story, but perchance he had not wept; but when once he saw it painted, he wept.

John the most reverend monk and presbyter and representative of the Eastern high priests, said: If to such a doctor the picture was helpful and drew forth tears, how much more in the case of the ignorant and simple will it bring compunction and benefit.

The holy Synod said: We have seen in several places the history of Abraham painted as the father says.

Theodore the most holy bishop of Catanea, said: If the holy Gregory, vigilant in divine cogitation, was moved to tears at the sight of the story of Abraham, how much more shall a painting of the incarnation of our Lord Christ, who for us was made man, move the beholders to their profit and to tears?

Tarasius the most holy Patriarch said: Shall we not weep when we see an image of our crucified Lord?

The holy Synod said: We shall indeed— for in that shall be found perfectly the profundity of the abasement of the incarnate God for our sakes.

[Post nonnulla a passage is read from St. Athanasius in which he describes the miracles worked at Berytus, after which there is found the following (col. 224),]

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: But perhaps someone will say, Why do not the images which we have work miracles? To which we answer, that as the Apostle has said, signs are for those who do not believe, not for believers. For they who approached that image were unbelievers. Therefore God gave them a sign through the image, to draw them to our Christian faith. But an evil and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign and no sign shall be given it.

[After a number of other quotations, was read the Canon of the Council in Trullo as a canon of the Sixth Synod (col. 233).]

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch said: There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod? Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ. These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine. But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons. And let no one doubt concerning them. For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting. For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons. They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?

[At the close of the Session, after a number of anathematisms had been pronounced, the following was read, to which all the bishops subscribed (col. 317).]

Fulfilling the divine precept of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, our holy Fathers did not hide the light of the divine knowledge given by him to them under a bushel, but they set it upon the candlestick of most useful teaching, so that it might give light to all in the house— that is to say, to those who are born in the Catholic Church; lest perchance anyone of those who piously confess the Lord might strike his foot against the stone of heretical evil doctrine. For they expelled every error of heretics and they cut off the rotten member if it was incurably sick. And with a fan they purged the floor. And the good wheat, that is to say the word which nourishes and which makes strong the heart of man, they laid up in the granary of the Catholic Church; but throwing outside the chaff of heretical evil opinion they burned it with unquenchable fire. Therefore also this holy and ecumenical Synod, met together for the second time in this illustrious metropolis of Nice, by the will of God and at the bidding of our pious and most faithful Emperors, Irene a new Helena, and a new Constantine, her God-protected offspring, having considered by their perusal the teachings of our approved and blessed Fathers, has glorified God himself, from whom there was given to them wisdom for our instruction, and for the perfecting of the Catholic and Apostolic Church: and against those who do not believe as they did, but have attempted to overshadow the truth through their novelty, they have chanted the words of the psalm: Oh how much evil have your enemies done in your sanctuary; and have glorified themselves, saying, There is not a teacher any more, and they shall not know that we treated with guile the word of truth. But we, in all things holding the doctrines and precepts of the same our God-bearing Fathers, make proclamation with one mouth and one heart, neither adding anything, nor taking anything away from those things which have been delivered to us by them. But in these things we are strengthened, in these things we are confirmed. Thus we confess, thus we teach, just as the holy and ecumenical six Synods have decreed and ratified. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son and Word, through whom all things were made, and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, consubstantial and coeternal with the same Father and with his Son who has had no beginning. The unbuilt-up, indivisible, incomprehensible, and non-circumscribed Trinity; he, wholly and alone, is to be worshipped and revered with adoration; one Godhead, one Lordship, one dominion, one realm and dynasty, which without division is apportioned to the Persons, and is fitted to the essence severally. For we confess that one of the same holy and consubstantial Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ the true God, in these last days was incarnate and made man for our salvation, and having saved our race through his saving incarnation, and passion, and resurrection, and ascension into heaven; and having delivered us from the error of idols; as also the prophet says, Not an ambassador, not an angel, but the Lord himself has saved us. Him we also follow, and adopt his voice, and cry aloud; No Synod, no power of kings, no God-hated agreement has delivered the Church from the error of the idols, as the Judaizing conciliabulum has madly dreamed, which raved against the venerable images; but the Lord of glory himself, the incarnate God, has saved us and has snatched us from idolatrous deceit. To him therefore be glory, to him be thanks, to him be eucharists, to him be praise, to him be magnificence. For his redemption and his salvation alone can perfectly save, and not that of other men who come of the earth. For he himself has fulfilled for us, upon whom the ends of the earth have come through the economy of his incarnation, the words spoken beforehand by his prophets, for he dwelt among us, and went in and out among us, and cast out the names of idols from the earth, as it was written. But we salute the voices of the Lord and of his Apostles through which we have been taught to honour in the first place her who is properly and truly the Mother of God and exalted above all the heavenly powers; also the holy and angelic powers; and the blessed and altogether lauded Apostles, and the glorious Prophets and the triumphant Martyrs which fought for Christ, and the holy and God-bearing Doctors, and all holy men; and to seek for their intercessions, as able to render us at home with the all-royal God of all, so long as we keep his commandments, and strive to live virtuously. Moreover we salute the image of the honourable and life-giving Cross, and the holy relics of the Saints; and we receive the holy and venerable images: and we salute them, and we embrace them, according to the ancient traditions of the holy Catholic Church of God, that is to say of our holy Fathers, who also received these things and established them in all the most holy Churches of God, and in every place of his dominion. These honourable and venerable images, as has been said, we honour and salute and reverently venerate: to wit, the image of the incarnation of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that of our spotless Lady the all-holy Mother of God, from whom he pleased to take flesh, and to save and deliver us from all impious idolatry; also the images of the holy and incorporeal Angels, who as men appeared to the just. Likewise also the figures and effigies of the divine and all-lauded Apostles, also of the God-speaking Prophets, and of the struggling Martyrs and of holy men. So that through their representations we may be able to be led back in memory and recollection to the prototype, and have a share in the holiness of some one of them.

Thus we have learned to think of these things, and we have been strengthened by our holy Fathers, and we have been strengthened by their divinely handed down teaching. And thanks be to God for his ineffable gift, that he has not deserted us at the end nor has the rod of the ungodly come into the lot of the righteous, lest the righteous put their hands, that is to say their actual deeds, unto wickedness. But he does well unto those who are good and true of heart, as the psalmist David melodiously has sung; with whom also we sing the rest of the psalm: As for such as turn back unto their own wickedness, the Lord shall lead them forth with the evil doers; and peace shall be upon the Israel of God.

[The subscriptions follow immediately and close the acts of this session (col. 321-346).]

Session 6

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 389.)

Leo the most renowned secretary said: The holy and blessed Synod know how at the last session we examined various sayings of the God-forsaken heretics, who had brought charges against the holy and spotless Church of the Christians for the setting up of the holy images. But today we have in our hands the written blasphemy of those calumniators of the Christians, that is to say, the absurd, and easily answered, and self-convicting definition (ὅρον) of the pseudosyllogus, in all respects agreeing with the impious opinion of the God-hated heretics. But not only have we this, but also the artful and most drastic refutation thereof, which the Holy Spirit had supervised. For it was right that this definition should be made a triumph by wise contradictions, and should be torn to pieces with strong refutations. This also we submit so as to know your pleasure with regard to it.

The holy Synod said: Let it be read.

John, the deacon and chancellor [of the most holy great Church of Constantinople, in Lat. only] read.

[John, the deacon, then read the orthodox refutation, and Gregory, the bishop of Neocæsarea, the Definition of the Mock Council, the one reading the heretical statement and the other the orthodox answer.]

 
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

You could also read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon


Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 24, 2013, 07:04:56 PM
I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Alexorig.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Alexamenos_trazo.png)
I don't know if jesusisiamism accepts independent evidence as proof. (btw, at the LATEST, this grafitto dates two centuries after the Crucifixion, and might just be one century after, or even less).

Maybe jesusisiam can pitch his views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Seminar

I can't believe you guys are using this as an example.

This is also called the "blasphemo", and was drawn by people mocking Christians worshiping their "God".

So the forum of Orthodox Christians uses art that mocked early Christians as an example to justify iconography.

I mean... guys - really?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 24, 2013, 07:07:35 PM
Quote
After the death and resurrection of Christ the new faith spread rapidly throughout the Roman world and the Near East. The stories of the Apostles and early witnesses who had seen and known Christ Himself were eagerly listened to by the converts to the new faith. Naturally, people who had seen Christ asked for descriptions of His appearance. At some point people began to create and distribute paintings of Christ. This also included his disciples and the reall martyrs of the Christian faith. The earliest images we know of was a statue of Christ which Eusebius, an important early Christian bishop, says had been set up in Caesarea-Phillipi (Paneaus) by the woman healed by Christ of an issue of blood. He also notes that in his time there were very ancient images of Peter and Paul.

However, the church was somewhat divided about images of Christ.
Eusebius refused to send the wife of Caesar Callus an image of Christ, for he thought it is idolatrous and a violation of Biblical injunctions. Some regional churches were against images as well, a local Spanish synod in 305 said images in churches were forbidden. However, the number of examples of paintings of the nativity and allegories of the Good Shepherd from around 250 AD, show how common Christian paintings had already become. The growth of images was concurrent with the development of the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ and is closely tied to the growing awareness of this essential element of the Christian faith.

In early Christian times there were two images of Christ that were more or less standardized. One was of a young, idealized and clean shaven "hero" type. The second was the image we are familiar with today - a man in his late 20's or early 30's with long hair tied at the back, a smooth beard,

 
 http://www.kurskroot.com/history_of_icons.html

Quote
The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the late 2nd to early 4th centuries on the walls of tombs belonging, most likely, to wealthy[6] Christians in the catacombs of Rome, although from literary evidence there may well have been panel icons which, like almost all classical painting, have disappeared.
Initially Jesus was represented indirectly by pictogram symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), the peacock, or an anchor (the Labarum or Chi-Rho was a later development). Later personified symbols were used, including Jonah, whose three days in the belly of the whale pre-figured the interval between Christ's death and Resurrection; Daniel in the lion's den; or Orpheus charming the animals.[7] The Tomb of the Julii has a famous but unique mosaic of Christ as Sol Invictus, a sun-god.[8] The image of "The Good Shepherd", a beardless youth in pastoral scenes collecting sheep, was the most common of these images, and was probably not understood as a portrait of the historical Jesus at this period.[9] It continues the classical Kriophoros, and in some cases may also represent the Shepherd of Hermas, a popular Christian literary work of the 2nd century.[10]
Among the earliest depictions clearly intended to directly represent Jesus himself are many showing him as a baby, usually held by his mother, especially in the Adoration of the Magi, seen as the first theophany, or display of the incarnate Christ to the world at large.[11] The oldest known portrait of Jesus, found in Syria and dated to about 235, shows him as a beardless young man of authoritative and dignified bearing. He is depicted dressed in the style of a young philosopher, with close-cropped hair and wearing a tunic and pallium – signs of good breeding in Greco-Roman society. From this, it is evident that some early Christians paid no heed to the historical context of Jesus being a Jew and visualised him solely in terms of their own social context, as a quasi-heroic figure, without supernatural attributes such as a halo (a fourth-century innovation).
From the 3rd century onwards, the first narrative scenes from the Life of Christ to be clearly seen are the Baptism of Christ, painted in a catacomb in about 200,[18] and the miracle of the Raising of Lazarus,[19] both of which can be clearly identified by the inclusion of the dove of the Holy Spirit in Baptisms, and the vertical, shroud-wrapped body of Lazarus. Other scenes remain ambiguous – an agape feast may be intended as a Last Supper, but before the development of a recognised physical appearance for Christ, and attributes such as the halo, it is impossible to tell, as tituli or captions are rarely used. There are some surviving scenes from Christ's Works of about 235 from the Dura Europos church on the Persian frontier of the Empire. During the 4th century a much greater number of scenes came to be depicted,[20] usually showing Christ as youthful, beardless and with short hair that does not reach his shoulders, although there is considerable variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

Quote

Rome, Catacombs of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter – Noah in the Ark   
There are also representations of the young people of Babylonia rescued from the flames of the furnace, Susan saved from the snares of the elders, Noah who escaped the flood, and Daniel who stayed unharmed in the lions’ den.

From the New Testament, the miracles are chosen of healing (the blind man, the paralytic, the hemorrhaging woman) and resurrection (Lazarus, the widow of Naim’s son, Jairus’ daughter), but also other episodes, such as the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well and the multiplication of the loaves.

Rome, Catacombs of St. Sebastian – Funeral inscription with symbols   
The art of the catacombs is also a symbolic art in the sense that some concepts which are difficult to express are represented in a simple way. To indicate Christ a fish is depicted; to signify the peace of heaven a dove is represented; to express firmness of faith an anchor is drawn. On the closing slabs of the loculi, symbols with different meanings are often engraved. In some cases, a tool is depicted which indicates the dead person’s trade in life. Some symbols, such as glasses, loaves of bread and amphorae, allude to the funeral meals consumed in honor of the deceased, the so-called refrigeria. Most of the symbols refer to eternal salvation, such as the dove, the palm, the peacock, the phoenix and the lamb.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – Our Lady with the Prophet

The catacombs and the Mother of God. In the Roman catacombs the most ancient image is preserved of Our Lady who is depicted in a painting in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The fresco, which can be dated back to the first half of the third century, depicts the Virgin with the Child on her knees in front of a prophet (perhaps Balaam or Isaiah) who is pointing to a star to refer to the messianic prediction. In the catacombs other episodes with Our Lady are also represented such as the Adoration of the Magi and scenes from the Christmas crib, but it is thought that prior to the Council of Ephesus, all these representations had a Christological and not a Mariological significance.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd in the catacombs. One of the images represented the most in the art of the catacombs is the Good Shepherd. While the model is taken from pagan culture, it immediately takes on a Christological significance inspired by the parable of the lost sheep. Christ is thus represented as a humble shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders as he watches over his little flock that is sometimes made up of only two sheep placed at his sides.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/archeo/inglese/documents/rc_com_archeo_doc_20011010_cataccrist_en.html#Arte

Quote
The Catacombs of Rome (Italian: Catacombe di Roma) are ancient catacombs, underground burial places under Rome, Italy, of which there are at least forty, some discovered only in recent decades. Though most famous for Christian burials, either in separate catacombs or mixed together, they began in the 2nd century,[1] much as a response to overcrowding and shortage of land. Many scholars have written that catacombs came about to help persecuted Christians to bury their dead secretly. The soft volcanic tuff rock under Rome is highly suitable for tunnelling, as it is softer when first exposed to air, hardening afterwards. Many have kilometres of tunnels, in up to four storeys (or layers).
The Christian catacombs are extremely important for the art history of early Christian art, as they contain the great majority of examples from before about 400 AD, in fresco and sculpture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome

So no icons from the 1st or 2nd century, no writings about venerating icons in the 1st or 2nd century, but all came 3rd or later.   But they are a tremendous part of the EO faith, involved in practically every form of EO worship.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 24, 2013, 07:09:34 PM
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.

I disagree, we have a ton from that time.  Lot's of writings.  Lot's of history.  Lot's of artifacts.
If I have pet beliefs, why are my beliefs written about in the scriptures, documented from early Christianity, whereas iconography is not.    I mean, let's really consider who has a pet belief.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 24, 2013, 07:15:31 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.  Why else do I ask for it so much?  Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....   Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

Thank you for asking.

It's because at that time the church message was spread.  The original apostles most likely already deceased.      The 2nd century Christians would have adopted teachings and practices from the apostles themselves, without too many years going by for distortion. 

Also it's to not always be accused of "sola scriptura", as the scriptures were written by the 2nd century.  This is important as "sola scriptura" is a trigger for making it easy to shun somebody's point off.   The 2nd century Christians were truly a church, which practiced many things that the EO faith did not.   As stated in prior posts, St. Polycarp worshiped on the Sabbath, held the Jewish feasts, all now which are banned via canon.   I do this to try to look past many men who have been in charge for a long time.   God Bless.   

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Brigidsboy on June 24, 2013, 07:18:48 PM
Please cite a source for the worship practices of Saint Polycarp. Thank You.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 24, 2013, 07:31:37 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.
No, you do not.
Why else do I ask for it so much?
To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.
Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)
The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....
Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.
And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.

Look, I'm too old for pot shots, really don't care.

If you believe this about Polycarp, you need to seriously look into the Greek letters and the mistranslations of them, including the Didache.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Fabio Leite on June 24, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
Basically in his hagiography it is said he was martyred on the Great Sabbath. From the adjective "great" some people make the leap that they observed Jewish rites.

Quote
The "Great Sabbath" ControversyAs an aside, some scholars have used the Martyrdom of Polycarp, which states that the bishop was taken on the day of the Sabbath and killed on the Great Sabbath, to demonstrate that the Smyrnaeans under Polycarp observed the seventh day as a Sabbath.

Historians such as William Cave who have written, "… the Sabbath or Saturday (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion."[13]

Conversely, some feel that the expression "the Great Sabbath" refers to the Christian Passover or another annual holy day. If so, then the martyrdom would have had to occur between one and two months later as Nisan 14 (the date that Polycarp observed Passover) cannot come before the end of March in any year. Other Great Sabbaths (if this is referring to what are commonly considered to be Jewish holy days, though observed by many early professors of Christ) come in the Spring, late summer, or Fall. None occur in the winter.[14]

These conjectures would be at odds with the Biblical evidence that suggests the common practice for Christians was in keeping the first day of the week (see Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Mark 16:9; etc.), though they could potentially be compatible with the Great Sabbath alluded to in the Gospel of John (John 7:37).[15] This is called the Last Great Day and is a stand-alone annual holy day immediately following the Feast of Tabernacles.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Saint_Polycarp#The_.22Great_Sabbath.22_Controversy

The difference that having the Tradition of the Church makes. Where there is evidence of continuity, some want to see rupture.

Quote
Holy Week
From OrthodoxWiki

 
A worshiper prostrates before the cross at the Twelve Passion Gospels service at St. Mary Orthodox Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Great and Holy Week is the week from the conclusion of Great Lent on the Saturday of Lazarus to the celebration of Pascha. It is emphasized that the services of Holy Week follow the ecclesiastical day, that is from sundown to sundown. Thus Saturday of Lazarus ends at sundown on Saturday.


(...)
Holy Saturday

Great and Holy Saturday Vespers and a Divine Liturgy of St. Basil are served, marked with readings of Psalms and Resurrection hymns that tell of Christ's descent into Hades, celebrated as the "First Resurrection" of Adam and the conquering of Death.


(...)



Please cite a source for the worship practices of Saint Polycarp. Thank You.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Romaios on June 24, 2013, 07:43:45 PM
As stated in prior posts, St. Polycarp worshiped on the Sabbath, held the Jewish feasts

Proof?

The only extant letter he wrote mentions none of these, but has this to say about St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Quote from: Letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians
I urge all of you, therefore, to obey the teaching about righteousness and to exercise unlimited endurance, like that which you saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus but also in others from your congregation and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles; be assured that all these “did not run in vain”, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are now in the place due them with the Lord, with whom they also suffered together.

Here's what the latter has to say about Judaizing:

Quote from: St. Ignatius (+98/117), Letter to the Magnesians, 10:1-3
Let us not, then, be insensible to his goodness! For if he imitates us in our actions, we no longer exist! Therefore let us become his disciples and learn to live according to Christianity. For one who is called by any name other than this, is not of God. Set aside, then, the evil leaven, old and sour, and turn to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with him to keep anyone among you from being spoiled, since you will be convicted by your odor. It is ridiculous to profess Jesus Christ and to Judaize; for Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, into which every tongue that has believed in God has been gathered together.

See also:

Quote from: The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 3-4 (2nd century)
And next, I imagine that you are most desirous of hearing something on this point, that the Christians do not observe the same forms of divine worship as do the Jews. The Jews, then, if they abstain from the kind of service above described, and deem it proper to worship one God as being Lord of all, [are right]; but if they offer Him worship in the way which we have described, they greatly err. (...) But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,--I do not think that you require to learn anything from me.

Source (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html)


Quote from: St. Justin Martyr (+165), The First Apology, 66-67
We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Brigidsboy on June 24, 2013, 08:31:46 PM
Thank You Fabiola and Romaios.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 11:26:39 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.
No, you do not.
Why else do I ask for it so much?
To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.
Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)
The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....
Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.
And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.

Look, I'm too old for pot shots, really don't care.

If you believe this about Polycarp, you need to seriously look into the Greek letters and the mistranslations of them, including the Didache.
unlike you, I can read the original.  One reason why I stick to original Christianity.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 11:41:01 PM
As stated in prior posts, St. Polycarp worshiped on the Sabbath, held the Jewish feasts

Proof?

The only extant letter he wrote mentions none of these, but has this to say about St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Quote from: Letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians
I urge all of you, therefore, to obey the teaching about righteousness and to exercise unlimited endurance, like that which you saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus but also in others from your congregation and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles; be assured that all these “did not run in vain”, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are now in the place due them with the Lord, with whom they also suffered together.

Here's what the latter has to say about Judaizing:

Quote from: St. Ignatius (+98/117), Letter to the Magnesians, 10:1-3
Let us not, then, be insensible to his goodness! For if he imitates us in our actions, we no longer exist! Therefore let us become his disciples and learn to live according to Christianity. For one who is called by any name other than this, is not of God. Set aside, then, the evil leaven, old and sour, and turn to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with him to keep anyone among you from being spoiled, since you will be convicted by your odor. It is ridiculous to profess Jesus Christ and to Judaize; for Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, into which every tongue that has believed in God has been gathered together.
Just before this, St. Ignatius writes:
Quote
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day [i.e. Sunday], on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, having come, raised them from the dead. Matthew 27:52
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 25, 2013, 01:05:16 AM
Your fair and full documentation of early Christianity my dear brother yeshuanism, doesn´t appear on the historical map until the 3rd century aswell. We sit in the same boat, if we use the same standards. Why do you use a specific standard regarding scripture, which as iconography, was well kept through tradition, not writings. If you wanna justify your faith without the church, you have to rely on manuscripts in the size of visa cards to trust what you believe.

Same standard, please.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jovan on June 25, 2013, 01:06:55 AM
If you argue against, show me entire copies of a new testament book, and even the entire bible as a whole to prove your case. Or else I can´t trust your version of early Christianity :/
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: NicholasMyra on June 25, 2013, 01:41:23 AM
 Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts..... 
So do we. Just not the post-revolt rabbinic interpretation of those feasts.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: William on June 25, 2013, 01:56:13 AM
I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Alexorig.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Alexamenos_trazo.png)
I don't know if jesusisiamism accepts independent evidence as proof. (btw, at the LATEST, this grafitto dates two centuries after the Crucifixion, and might just be one century after, or even less).

Maybe jesusisiam can pitch his views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Seminar

I can't believe you guys are using this as an example.

This is also called the "blasphemo", and was drawn by people mocking Christians worshiping their "God".

So the forum of Orthodox Christians uses art that mocked early Christians as an example to justify iconography.

I mean... guys - really?

Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 25, 2013, 02:25:31 AM
Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.

Not that I'm one to agree with YiM on issues like this, but I do wonder if he has a point here.  Is the graffito depicting a man worshiping before or venerating an image of the Crucified, or is it ridiculing the idea of a man worshiping a crucified man as God?  What little reading I've done about depictions of the Crucifixion, the crucifix, etc. led me to believe that the development of the Cross as a religious image looks something like this:

"Empty" Cross --> Cross with a living Christ depicted as a king/priest --> Cross with the dead/dying Christ

If that's true, then this example of an image of a crucified man (albeit with an animal's head) is unique for its antiquity but doesn't really "fit" in the overall development.  Is there something else I'm missing?  I still think YiM's approach and most of his conclusions are nonsensical, but I wonder if this is a "stopped clock" moment...
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: lovetzatziki on June 25, 2013, 03:35:18 AM
Quote
After the death and resurrection of Christ the new faith spread rapidly throughout the Roman world and the Near East. The stories of the Apostles and early witnesses who had seen and known Christ Himself were eagerly listened to by the converts to the new faith. Naturally, people who had seen Christ asked for descriptions of His appearance. At some point people began to create and distribute paintings of Christ. This also included his disciples and the reall martyrs of the Christian faith. The earliest images we know of was a statue of Christ which Eusebius, an important early Christian bishop, says had been set up in Caesarea-Phillipi (Paneaus) by the woman healed by Christ of an issue of blood. He also notes that in his time there were very ancient images of Peter and Paul.

However, the church was somewhat divided about images of Christ.
Eusebius refused to send the wife of Caesar Callus an image of Christ, for he thought it is idolatrous and a violation of Biblical injunctions. Some regional churches were against images as well, a local Spanish synod in 305 said images in churches were forbidden. However, the number of examples of paintings of the nativity and allegories of the Good Shepherd from around 250 AD, show how common Christian paintings had already become. The growth of images was concurrent with the development of the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ and is closely tied to the growing awareness of this essential element of the Christian faith.

In early Christian times there were two images of Christ that were more or less standardized. One was of a young, idealized and clean shaven "hero" type. The second was the image we are familiar with today - a man in his late 20's or early 30's with long hair tied at the back, a smooth beard,

 
 http://www.kurskroot.com/history_of_icons.html

Quote
The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the late 2nd to early 4th centuries on the walls of tombs belonging, most likely, to wealthy[6] Christians in the catacombs of Rome, although from literary evidence there may well have been panel icons which, like almost all classical painting, have disappeared.
Initially Jesus was represented indirectly by pictogram symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), the peacock, or an anchor (the Labarum or Chi-Rho was a later development). Later personified symbols were used, including Jonah, whose three days in the belly of the whale pre-figured the interval between Christ's death and Resurrection; Daniel in the lion's den; or Orpheus charming the animals.[7] The Tomb of the Julii has a famous but unique mosaic of Christ as Sol Invictus, a sun-god.[8] The image of "The Good Shepherd", a beardless youth in pastoral scenes collecting sheep, was the most common of these images, and was probably not understood as a portrait of the historical Jesus at this period.[9] It continues the classical Kriophoros, and in some cases may also represent the Shepherd of Hermas, a popular Christian literary work of the 2nd century.[10]
Among the earliest depictions clearly intended to directly represent Jesus himself are many showing him as a baby, usually held by his mother, especially in the Adoration of the Magi, seen as the first theophany, or display of the incarnate Christ to the world at large.[11] The oldest known portrait of Jesus, found in Syria and dated to about 235, shows him as a beardless young man of authoritative and dignified bearing. He is depicted dressed in the style of a young philosopher, with close-cropped hair and wearing a tunic and pallium – signs of good breeding in Greco-Roman society. From this, it is evident that some early Christians paid no heed to the historical context of Jesus being a Jew and visualised him solely in terms of their own social context, as a quasi-heroic figure, without supernatural attributes such as a halo (a fourth-century innovation).
From the 3rd century onwards, the first narrative scenes from the Life of Christ to be clearly seen are the Baptism of Christ, painted in a catacomb in about 200,[18] and the miracle of the Raising of Lazarus,[19] both of which can be clearly identified by the inclusion of the dove of the Holy Spirit in Baptisms, and the vertical, shroud-wrapped body of Lazarus. Other scenes remain ambiguous – an agape feast may be intended as a Last Supper, but before the development of a recognised physical appearance for Christ, and attributes such as the halo, it is impossible to tell, as tituli or captions are rarely used. There are some surviving scenes from Christ's Works of about 235 from the Dura Europos church on the Persian frontier of the Empire. During the 4th century a much greater number of scenes came to be depicted,[20] usually showing Christ as youthful, beardless and with short hair that does not reach his shoulders, although there is considerable variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

Quote

Rome, Catacombs of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter – Noah in the Ark   
There are also representations of the young people of Babylonia rescued from the flames of the furnace, Susan saved from the snares of the elders, Noah who escaped the flood, and Daniel who stayed unharmed in the lions’ den.

From the New Testament, the miracles are chosen of healing (the blind man, the paralytic, the hemorrhaging woman) and resurrection (Lazarus, the widow of Naim’s son, Jairus’ daughter), but also other episodes, such as the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well and the multiplication of the loaves.

Rome, Catacombs of St. Sebastian – Funeral inscription with symbols   
The art of the catacombs is also a symbolic art in the sense that some concepts which are difficult to express are represented in a simple way. To indicate Christ a fish is depicted; to signify the peace of heaven a dove is represented; to express firmness of faith an anchor is drawn. On the closing slabs of the loculi, symbols with different meanings are often engraved. In some cases, a tool is depicted which indicates the dead person’s trade in life. Some symbols, such as glasses, loaves of bread and amphorae, allude to the funeral meals consumed in honor of the deceased, the so-called refrigeria. Most of the symbols refer to eternal salvation, such as the dove, the palm, the peacock, the phoenix and the lamb.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – Our Lady with the Prophet

The catacombs and the Mother of God. In the Roman catacombs the most ancient image is preserved of Our Lady who is depicted in a painting in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The fresco, which can be dated back to the first half of the third century, depicts the Virgin with the Child on her knees in front of a prophet (perhaps Balaam or Isaiah) who is pointing to a star to refer to the messianic prediction. In the catacombs other episodes with Our Lady are also represented such as the Adoration of the Magi and scenes from the Christmas crib, but it is thought that prior to the Council of Ephesus, all these representations had a Christological and not a Mariological significance.

Return to Index

 

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd in the catacombs. One of the images represented the most in the art of the catacombs is the Good Shepherd. While the model is taken from pagan culture, it immediately takes on a Christological significance inspired by the parable of the lost sheep. Christ is thus represented as a humble shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders as he watches over his little flock that is sometimes made up of only two sheep placed at his sides.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/archeo/inglese/documents/rc_com_archeo_doc_20011010_cataccrist_en.html#Arte

Quote
The Catacombs of Rome (Italian: Catacombe di Roma) are ancient catacombs, underground burial places under Rome, Italy, of which there are at least forty, some discovered only in recent decades. Though most famous for Christian burials, either in separate catacombs or mixed together, they began in the 2nd century,[1] much as a response to overcrowding and shortage of land. Many scholars have written that catacombs came about to help persecuted Christians to bury their dead secretly. The soft volcanic tuff rock under Rome is highly suitable for tunnelling, as it is softer when first exposed to air, hardening afterwards. Many have kilometres of tunnels, in up to four storeys (or layers).
The Christian catacombs are extremely important for the art history of early Christian art, as they contain the great majority of examples from before about 400 AD, in fresco and sculpture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Rome

So no icons from the 1st or 2nd century, no writings about venerating icons in the 1st or 2nd century, but all came 3rd or later.   But they are a tremendous part of the EO faith, involved in practically every form of EO worship.

On the contrary plenty of icons in the 2nd century. The earliest surviving Christian art comes from the 2nd century. Plenty of biblical depiction in the Roman Catacombs. As someone else said, the first Christians were to busy being persecuted to draw christian art. Even so there is a lot of Christian art in all the centuries of Christianity, even from the beginning , if we are to consider the Acheiropoieta images. I read that this symbols of faith were also depicted in Christian homes and probably in Christian Churches (see the Dura-Europos church) , the underground Churches in Rome, etc. Even Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria speak of Christian art, the Shepherd on cups , seal rings , etc. Eusebius writes of an ancient statue of Christ in Caesarea-Phillipi of the woman with the issue of blood. So yes Christian art always existed. The role of icons was to represent the gospel in images and the symbols of our faith. There are also Church fathers that took defense on icons and venerating icons, even from the 4th century if not earlier. Sts Basil the Great and Chrysostomus come to mind. Veneration comes natural. It's the natural feeling of honour towards everything that is meek. The same is with icons and with everything that belongs to the Church. The Church is not called Orthodox for nothing.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 08:46:23 PM
I think the first known example of Christian icon-veneration is when the apostles bowed down before Christ (Matthew 28:9), the icon of God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

There's also the Alexamenos graffito, which is a satire of a Christian venerating a cross (which has the same theological justification as venerating an icon).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Alexorig.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Alexamenos_trazo.png)
I don't know if jesusisiamism accepts independent evidence as proof. (btw, at the LATEST, this grafitto dates two centuries after the Crucifixion, and might just be one century after, or even less).

Maybe jesusisiam can pitch his views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Seminar

I can't believe you guys are using this as an example.

This is also called the "blasphemo", and was drawn by people mocking Christians worshiping their "God".

So the forum of Orthodox Christians uses art that mocked early Christians as an example to justify iconography.

I mean... guys - really?

Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.
You just went over his head.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 10:42:55 PM
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.
I disagree, we have a ton from that time.  Lot's of writings.  Lot's of history.  Lot's of artifacts.
You can disagree to your heart's content: unfortunately, it doesn't multiply the evidence.  We don't even have a "ton from that time" on what the Caesars were doing, let alone the Christians.
If I have pet beliefs, why are my beliefs written about in the scriptures, documented from early Christianity
They're not, as has been repeatedly shown to you, from your odd idea that we have to call Jesus "yeshua," mispronouncing the name in Aramaic, to the observance of the Kosher laws, questioning the Apostleship of St. Paul, etc.
whereas iconography is not.  I mean, let's really consider who has a pet belief.
Yes, let's.  The Church, which was around in the 1st century, or you, who has no connection to the 1st century or Palestine.

Not a hard conclusion to make.
Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.
No, simplistic.

For example, every Roman emperor had official portraits made, which were copied and distributed throughout the empire, to all levels of society).

out of the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of portraits made for each of the nearly one hundred emperors from Augustus to Constantine, only this one has survived.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Severan_dynasty_-_tondo.png)

Given that these state sponsored images did not survive, how do you expect those images whose possession was a capital offense should survive in profusion?

Then there is the question of those which survive being "restored," like this one in San Marco, going from something like this
(http://www.hanscomfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/John_of_Stagnos_Visitation.jpg)(http://gabrielsmessage.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/icon_dormition4_medium.jpg)
to this in a Renaissance "restoration"
(http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8XZ8XV/$File/Andrea-Del-Castagno-Dormition-of-the-Virgin-2-.JPG)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 25, 2013, 11:56:23 PM
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.
I disagree, we have a ton from that time.  Lot's of writings.  Lot's of history.  Lot's of artifacts.
You can disagree to your heart's content: unfortunately, it doesn't multiply the evidence.  We don't even have a "ton from that time" on what the Caesars were doing, let alone the Christians.
If I have pet beliefs, why are my beliefs written about in the scriptures, documented from early Christianity
They're not, as has been repeatedly shown to you, from your odd idea that we have to call Jesus "yeshua," mispronouncing the name in Aramaic, to the observance of the Kosher laws, questioning the Apostleship of St. Paul, etc.
whereas iconography is not.  I mean, let's really consider who has a pet belief.
Yes, let's.  The Church, which was around in the 1st century, or you, who has no connection to the 1st century or Palestine.

Not a hard conclusion to make.
Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.
No, simplistic.

For example, every Roman emperor had official portraits made, which were copied and distributed throughout the empire, to all levels of society).

out of the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of portraits made for each of the nearly one hundred emperors from Augustus to Constantine, only this one has survived.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Severan_dynasty_-_tondo.png)

Given that these state sponsored images did not survive, how do you expect those images whose possession was a capital offense should survive in profusion?

Then there is the question of those which survive being "restored," like this one in San Marco, going from something like this
(http://www.hanscomfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/John_of_Stagnos_Visitation.jpg)(http://gabrielsmessage.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/icon_dormition4_medium.jpg)
to this in a Renaissance "restoration"
(http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8XZ8XV/$File/Andrea-Del-Castagno-Dormition-of-the-Virgin-2-.JPG)

I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived.  If they are a large part of the EO worship, and if EO is "The church", then certainly there should at least be some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 26, 2013, 12:00:58 AM
I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived. 

If a painting doesn't happen to survive, a book certainly should?  On what basis?   
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 02:14:49 AM
Lol.

Satirizing a practice shows that the practice existed.

Not that I'm one to agree with YiM on issues like this, but I do wonder if he has a point here.  Is the graffito depicting a man worshiping before or venerating an image of the Crucified, or is it ridiculing the idea of a man worshiping a crucified man as God?  What little reading I've done about depictions of the Crucifixion, the crucifix, etc. led me to believe that the development of the Cross as a religious image looks something like this:

"Empty" Cross --> Cross with a living Christ depicted as a king/priest --> Cross with the dead/dying Christ

If that's true, then this example of an image of a crucified man (albeit with an animal's head) is unique for its antiquity but doesn't really "fit" in the overall development.  Is there something else I'm missing?  I still think YiM's approach and most of his conclusions are nonsensical, but I wonder if this is a "stopped clock" moment...
The pagans had claimed that the Jews worshipped the ass, as Josephus has to protest:
Quote
However, I cannot but admire those other authors who furnished this man with such his materials; I mean Possidonius and Apollonius [the son of] Molo, who, while they accuse us for not worshipping the same gods whom others worship, they think themselves not guilty of impiety when they tell lies of us, and frame absurd and reproachful stories about our temple; whereas it is a most shameful thing for freemen to forge lies on any occasion, and much more so to forge them about our temple, which was so famous over all the world, and was preserved so sacred by us; for Apion hath the impudence to pretend that" the Jews placed an ass's head in their holy place;" and he affirms that this was discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes spoiled our temple, and found that ass's head there made of gold, and worth a great deal of money.
Tertullian towards the end of the second century responded to this calumny, and the extension of it (even by Jews) against the Christians:
Quote
In this matter we are (said to be) guilty not merely of forsaking the religion of the community, but of introducing a monstrous superstition; for some among you have dreamed that our god is an ass's head,--an absurdity which Cornelius Tacitus first suggested. In the fourth book of his histories, where he is treating of the Jewish war, he begins his description with the origin of that nation, and gives his own views respecting both the origin and the name of their religion. He relates that the Jews, in their migration in the desert, when suffering for want of water, escaped by following for guides some wild asses, which they supposed to be going in quest of water after pasture, and that on this account the image of one of these animals was worshipped by the Jews. From this, I suppose, it was presumed that we, too, from our close connection with the Jewish religion, have ours consecrated under the same emblematic form. The same Cornelius Tacitus, however,--who, to say the truth, is most loquacious in falsehood--forgetting his later statement, relates how Pompey the Great, after conquering the Jews and capturing Jerusalem, entered the temple, but found nothing in the shape of an image, though he examined the place carefully. Where, then, should their God have been found? Nowhere else, of course than in so memorable a temple which was carefully shut to all but the priests, and into which there could be no fear of a stranger entering. But what apology must I here offer for what I am going to say, when I have no other object at the moment than to make a passing remark or two in a general way which shall be equally applicable to yourselves? Suppose that our God, then, be an asinine person, will you at all events deny that you possess the same characteristics with ourselves in that matter? (Not their heads only, but) entire asses, are, to be sure, objects of adoration to you, along with their tutelar Epona; and all herds, and cattle, and beasts you consecrate, and their stables into the bargain! This, perhaps, is your grievance against us, that, when surrounded by cattle-worshippers of every kind we are simply devoted to asses!....Report has introduced a new calumny respecting our God. Not so long ago, a most abandoned wretch in that city of yours, a man who had deserted indeed his own religion--a Jew, in fact, who had only lost his skin, flayed of course by wild beasts, against which he enters the lists for hire day after day with a sound body, and so in a condition to lose his skin--carried about in public a caricature of us with this label: Onocoetes ["Ass-born"]. This (figure) had ass's ears, and was dressed in a toga with a book, having a hoof on one of his feet. And the crowd believed this infamous Jew. For what other set of men is the seed-plot of all the calumny against us? Throughout the city, therefore, Onocoetes is all the talk. As, however, it is less then "a nine days' wonder," and so destitute of all authority from time, and weak enough from the character of its author, I shall gratify myself by using it simply in the way of a retort. Let us then see whether you are not here also found in our company. Now it matters not what their form may be, when our concern is about deformed images. You have amongst you gods with a dog's head, and a lion's head, with the horns of a cow, and a ram, and a goat, goat-shaped or serpent-shaped, and winged in foot, head, and back. Why therefore brand our one God so conspicuously? Many an Onocoetes is found amongst yourselves.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html

In between Tertullian talks about the "worship" (i.e. veneration) of the Cross, which he doesn't deny, but rather shows the pagans worship the same: "As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god..."

Earlier, Marcus Cornelius Fronto (c. 100–170), the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, gave an anti-Christian oration c. 161, fragments which were incorporated within the century in the apology of Minucius Felix.  Among the charges against the Christians, Fronto rants
Quote
I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion,--a worthy and appropriate religion for such manners. Some say that they worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve...I purposely pass over many things, for those that I have mentioned are already too many; and that all these, or the greater part of them, are true, the obscurity of their vile religion declares. For why do they endeavour with such pains to conceal and to cloak whatever they worship, since honourable things always rejoice in publicity, while crimes are kept secret? Why have they no altars, no temples, no acknowledged images? Why do they never speak openly, never congregate freely, unless for the reason that what they adore and conceal is either worthy of punishment, or something to be ashamed of?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/octavius.html

Although murky, it does become clear, seeing the association of "ass-worship" (which the Christians, and Jews, denied) and the Cross (which the Christians did not deny), that Christian worship involved more than just ideas.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 03:02:58 AM
I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived.
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians (I Cor. 5:9), the Third Epistle to the Corinthians (II Cor. 2:4; II Cor. 7:8-9), the First Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3-4) and the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)
 ;)
If they are a large part of the EO worship, and if EO is "The church", then certainly there should at least be some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon.
St. Innocent, Archbishop of the Aleutians and Metropolitan of America, wrote the Catechism "The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven," first in Aleut to evangelize this continent, and then translated into Russia, where it was very popular as a summary of Orthodoxy.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kingdomofheaven.aspx
It doesn't have any "writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon."  Should I conclude that St. Innocent, Russia America and 19th century Moscow didn't venerate icons?

The earlier cathechism for this continent, the English translation of Met. St. Peter Movila's "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gs0HAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Orthodox+Confession+of+the+Catholic+and+Apostolic+Eastern+Church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6Y3KUfWbMaK8yAHbqYHQBw&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=image&f=false
translated in colonial Virginia, reprinted a century later when Orhodoxy was becoming established throughout the continent
http://archive.org/details/cu31924029363094

The original (in Latin) had been translated into Greek and approved by the Synod of Iasi and Jerusalem for use by all Orthodox.  It remained the standard Orthodox Catechism for two centuries.  Out of the 72 topics it covers, only two have "some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon."  And that was only because of the presence of Calvinist iconoclasm in St. Peter's native Romania, his jurisdiction of the Polish Lithuania Commonwealth and in Constantinople itself.

There were no iconoclast heretics in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Church, hence no reason for "some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon," because the Orthodox knew that.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: lovetzatziki on June 26, 2013, 06:42:46 AM
Why are you so infatuated with first and second century Christianity?

At a guess, because we have so little from that time, that it allows one to claim authenticity and authority for one's own personal interpretations and pet beliefs.
I disagree, we have a ton from that time.  Lot's of writings.  Lot's of history.  Lot's of artifacts.
You can disagree to your heart's content: unfortunately, it doesn't multiply the evidence.  We don't even have a "ton from that time" on what the Caesars were doing, let alone the Christians.
If I have pet beliefs, why are my beliefs written about in the scriptures, documented from early Christianity
They're not, as has been repeatedly shown to you, from your odd idea that we have to call Jesus "yeshua," mispronouncing the name in Aramaic, to the observance of the Kosher laws, questioning the Apostleship of St. Paul, etc.
whereas iconography is not.  I mean, let's really consider who has a pet belief.
Yes, let's.  The Church, which was around in the 1st century, or you, who has no connection to the 1st century or Palestine.

Not a hard conclusion to make.
Like a surviving icon or writings from the 1st century about icons and veneration.  Pretty simple.
No, simplistic.

For example, every Roman emperor had official portraits made, which were copied and distributed throughout the empire, to all levels of society).

out of the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of portraits made for each of the nearly one hundred emperors from Augustus to Constantine, only this one has survived.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Severan_dynasty_-_tondo.png)

Given that these state sponsored images did not survive, how do you expect those images whose possession was a capital offense should survive in profusion?

Then there is the question of those which survive being "restored," like this one in San Marco, going from something like this
(http://www.hanscomfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/John_of_Stagnos_Visitation.jpg)(http://gabrielsmessage.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/icon_dormition4_medium.jpg)
to this in a Renaissance "restoration"
(http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8XZ8XV/$File/Andrea-Del-Castagno-Dormition-of-the-Virgin-2-.JPG)

I understand the point completely, if an icon happened to NOT survive, at least a writing of venerating icons should have survived.  If they are a large part of the EO worship, and if EO is "The church", then certainly there should at least be some kind of writing on the practice of venerating icons, and how it is the same as kissing the person/god portrayed in the icon.

I am curious just how many writings about the veneration of icons there are from 787 till today?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on June 26, 2013, 06:59:06 AM
Quote
I am curious just how many writings about the veneration of icons there are from 787 till today?

Well, there's the hymnography for the Sunday of Orthodoxy, for starters ....  ;)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 26, 2013, 12:06:32 PM
Although murky, it does become clear, seeing the association of "ass-worship" (which the Christians, and Jews, denied) and the Cross (which the Christians did not deny), that Christian worship involved more than just ideas.

Thanks for all that, it was helpful. 

Quote
Suppose that our God, then, be an asinine person, will you at all events deny that you possess the same characteristics with ourselves in that matter? (Not their heads only, but) entire asses, are, to be sure, objects of adoration to you, along with their tutelar Epona; and all herds, and cattle, and beasts you consecrate, and their stables into the bargain! This, perhaps, is your grievance against us, that, when surrounded by cattle-worshippers of every kind we are simply devoted to asses!....
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html

You've gotta love that...
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 26, 2013, 04:28:25 PM
Although murky, it does become clear, seeing the association of "ass-worship" (which the Christians, and Jews, denied) and the Cross (which the Christians did not deny), that Christian worship involved more than just ideas.

Thanks for all that, it was helpful. 

Quote
Suppose that our God, then, be an asinine person, will you at all events deny that you possess the same characteristics with ourselves in that matter? (Not their heads only, but) entire asses, are, to be sure, objects of adoration to you, along with their tutelar Epona; and all herds, and cattle, and beasts you consecrate, and their stables into the bargain! This, perhaps, is your grievance against us, that, when surrounded by cattle-worshippers of every kind we are simply devoted to asses!....
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html

You've gotta love that...

Some might argue that this practice continues today...albeit on several different levels...
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 28, 2013, 10:54:26 PM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.
No, you do not.
Why else do I ask for it so much?
To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.
Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)
The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....
Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.
And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.

Look, I'm too old for pot shots, really don't care.

If you believe this about Polycarp, you need to seriously look into the Greek letters and the mistranslations of them, including the Didache.
unlike you, I can read the original.  One reason why I stick to original Christianity.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Nephi on June 28, 2013, 10:58:54 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Ba-dum-tish!
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: SolEX01 on June 28, 2013, 10:59:29 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.    :police:
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Asteriktos on June 28, 2013, 11:02:42 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:

asterisk

Whatchu talking about Willis?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 28, 2013, 11:04:16 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Ba-dum-tish!

Yep, and when documented, that New Testament contained NOTHING which I wrote about above.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 28, 2013, 11:04:50 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:

asterisk

Whatchu talking about Willis?

LOL
 ;D
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 28, 2013, 11:06:40 PM

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now?  :o
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Nephi on June 28, 2013, 11:07:35 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.
Yep

Quoted in emphasis for future generations to see.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 28, 2013, 11:07:40 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.    :police:

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 28, 2013, 11:08:30 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.
Yep

Quoted in emphasis for future generations to see.

Meh, they'll see you fragment quoted, thus showing you couldn't handle the truth.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: SolEX01 on June 28, 2013, 11:09:52 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.    :police:

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.

We've resoundingly repeatedly repudiated your claims.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 28, 2013, 11:11:36 PM

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now?  :o

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 28, 2013, 11:23:36 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.    :police:

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.

We've resoundingly repeatedly repudiated your claims.

Absolutely not.  Most are loaded and full of pot shots.  These things did NOT exist in the early church.  Horse headed mockeries of Christians next to the crucified Christ do NOT count as icons.  They weren't even drawn by Christians.

How can you accept such silly answers?  Seriously, go back and read how people were passing that off as early Christian art.... When it was pagan art making fun of Christians.   Then they go on to show stuff from the late 3rd & 4th century....

Don't think that I was repudiated, when honestly, people just took pot shots that can't handle reality.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 28, 2013, 11:25:13 PM

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now?  :o

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".


They didn't say "Bible" either. Is that on the chopping block?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on June 28, 2013, 11:28:43 PM

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.


Heresy. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not "part of God", they ARE God.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on June 28, 2013, 11:39:39 PM
Is there a betting pool as to how long it'll take them to break out the ban hammer? I can't believe he's lasted this long. At least Flick Flack picks a new name and cartoon character every time he starts his silliness.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 28, 2013, 11:40:33 PM
I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

While we ought to care about what the Jews believed in before the coming of Christ (e.g., it helps us understand the OT), after his coming he gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to lead her into all truth and to understand those things in the Scriptures which concerned himself.  Why should we care about Jewish errors rather than Jesus' truth?  And yet, you give Judaism, both pre- and post-Christian Judaisms, more credit than Jesus by rejecting the Trinity.  The word "Trinity", which you have a problem with, may have come later, but it was a word to describe what Christians saw as clearly taught by the NT and revealed, if not fully understood at the time, in the OT regarding who God is.  If you want to be a Jew, that's your choice and that's fine, but don't imagine for a moment you're a Christian.        
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: SolEX01 on June 28, 2013, 11:46:13 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.    :police:

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.

We've resoundingly repeatedly repudiated your claims.

Absolutely not.  Most are loaded and full of pot shots.  These things did NOT exist in the early church.  Horse headed mockeries of Christians next to the crucified Christ do NOT count as icons.  They weren't even drawn by Christians.

How can you accept such silly answers?  Seriously, go back and read how people were passing that off as early Christian art.... When it was pagan art making fun of Christians.   Then they go on to show stuff from the late 3rd & 4th century....

Don't think that I was repudiated, when honestly, people just took pot shots that can't handle reality.

Reject your reality?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 28, 2013, 11:48:33 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...


It's almost silly at this point to try and dispute inaccuracies like those above when someone is so intent on believing Jewish fables rather than the God revealed in Christ, but why not?  

YiM, I'll grant you that there was no iconostasis, diskos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets, and trikirion and dikirion as we now have them.  But while you post a lot of protests against such things, I haven't yet come across anything you might have written about what the worship of original Christians was like during the period of original Christianity (presuming 1st-2nd century from your previous posts).  

If they didn't prostrate (never mind that examples are in Scripture), or use repetitive prayers (also in Scripture), etc., what did they do?  
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on June 28, 2013, 11:49:28 PM
Of course he is. He always pretends he doesn't understand something, as a pretext to get mad about it and tell us all how we're wrong.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 28, 2013, 11:54:20 PM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...


It's almost silly at this point to try and dispute inaccuracies like those above when someone is so intent on believing Jewish fables rather than the God revealed in Christ, but why not?  

YiM, I'll grant you that there was no iconostasis, diskos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets, and trikirion and dikirion as we now have them.  But while you post a lot of protests against such things, I haven't yet come across anything you might have written about what the worship of original Christians was like during the period of original Christianity (presuming 1st-2nd century from your previous posts).  

If they didn't prostrate (never mind that examples are in Scripture), or use repetitive prayers (also in Scripture), etc., what did they do?  
Don't be ridiculous.  Everyone knows that the early church busted out their guitars and sang some cool praise songs while the congregation held their hands up in the air and swayed to the music. St. Paul really could riff on that thing.  Good times, man, good times.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Nephi on June 29, 2013, 12:42:53 AM
Don't be ridiculous.  Everyone knows that the early church busted out their guitars and sang some cool praise songs while the congregation held their hands up in the air and swayed to the music. St. Paul really could riff on that thing.  Good times, man, good times.

Now you're being ridiculous. Everyone knows the Apostles actually wrote the New Testament in Pennsylvania Dutch, wore blue suspender pants with button shirts and straw hats, and absolutely did not use guitars and sing cool praise songs.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: mike on June 29, 2013, 07:13:38 AM
Actually, prostrations are mentioned as a way of prayer  in the NT.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 29, 2013, 07:33:34 AM

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now?  :o

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".


They didn't say "Bible" either. Is that on the chopping block?

Nor did they "have" a "Bible" as we know it today or the past 17 centuries or so.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 29, 2013, 09:30:18 AM
YiM's mental image of St. Peter:

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120827-mullet-vsmall.380;380;7;70;0.jpg)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Romaios on June 29, 2013, 09:45:09 AM
But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".

Did the "original Hebrews" say El, Elohim, Yahweh, Adonay, Jehovah, Hashem, Adoshem, HaMaqom or HaQadosh barukh hu
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: genesisone on June 29, 2013, 09:51:08 AM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Ba-dum-tish!
Likewise, when my wife and I were married we didn't have kids, we didn't have grandchildren, we didn't own a house, we didn't host a family Thanksgiving dinner, we didn't have a computer (or even a calculator!), we didn't have cell phones, we didn't plant a garden, we didn't have grey hair, we didn't have boxes full of photographs, we didn't have 38 years of shared memories.

Are we more married or less married than on our wedding day? All healthy relationships grow and develop. How odd it would be for my wife and me to be living exactly as we were in 1975.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on June 29, 2013, 11:32:33 AM
Exactly. Even if icons didn't date to the early Church, which they do, they could simply be a legitimate outgrowth. Along with copies of the Bible, church buildings, Christian books, and these neat things called computers and online forums.  :D
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Shiny on June 29, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
didn't even say trinity

Well YiM, I would say it wasn't really necessary until certain heresies came about. Do you agree?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2013, 02:08:05 AM
Refuted no.  Murdered and excommunicated, yes.

The Iconodules weren't refuted but murdered and excommunicated.

He was speaking of iconoclasts and comparing me to one.  Iconoclasts were murdered by iconodules.
You are an iconoclast.

Quote
I mostly focus on 1st and 2nd century Christianity
Other than the parts you dont like.

PP

I just don't kiss paint and wood while saying "beam it up St. Peter".

And certainly I accept the 1st and 2nd Century stuff.
No, you do not.
Why else do I ask for it so much?
To feed your ego.

Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, there were no icons used by the earliest Christians, or writings about icons.
Odd thing is, and the harsh reality, you depend on the earliest Christians who used icons and wrote the Scriptures for the Bible you claim to read.

Would love to see one writing from St. Polycarp stating "Veneration of images (or icons) will raise your kiss the that depicted in the image".    (or similar statement)
The same St. Polycarp whose relics were gathered up for veneration immediately after his martyrdom?

Nothing of the sort exists in early Christian writings....
Neither does a Biblical canon.

Gah, and to think, this man worshiped on the Sabbath AND practiced the Jewish feasts.....  He's a saint too, but by EO canon, anathema.... Irony at its best.... You really can't make this stuff up.
And yet you continually do.

Btw, St. Polycarp worshiped on Sunday (and every day leading up to Saturday).  And no, he didn't practice the Jewish feasts.

There were no icons in use, nor venerated artificial images in the earliest Christian church.
so Jesusisiam pontificates ex cathedra outside of the Church.  Today.

Look, I'm too old for pot shots, really don't care.

If you believe this about Polycarp, you need to seriously look into the Greek letters and the mistranslations of them, including the Didache.
unlike you, I can read the original.  One reason why I stick to original Christianity.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't
The Church was there.

You were not.

Guess who knows what it talking about.

Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.
Yes, the Truth.

I'll get into the particulars later, God willing.  I gotta get to bed.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2013, 02:10:20 AM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have the New Testament.

Ba-dum-tish!

Yep, and when documented, that New Testament contained NOTHING which I wrote about above.
You first have to prove the relevance of the New Testament to the discussion.  As has been pointed out, the NT Canon didn't exist, so what it contained doesn't support your line of argument.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2013, 02:13:22 AM
Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament inanimate objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You like repeating yourself ad nauseum.  Run a spell checker through your rantings next time.    :police:

He keeps saying he's practicing Original Christianity throwing in pot shots.  So I repeatedly have to prove to him that he's not.
Repeatedly?  You haven't once.

Btw, I'll go into detail, but in the meantime, on your denial of relics, Acts 19:12.

And as has already been asked: so, you have decided to deny Trinitarianism?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2013, 02:16:10 AM

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now?  :o

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".


Of course not.  They didn't speak English (yes, I know it comes as a shock to you, but the King James isn't the original version).

They didn't say "New Testament" or "Anabaptist" either.

As for your strange theology...well, what can I say that St. Peter didn't at the end of his second epistle?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 01, 2013, 08:16:55 AM

Funny thing is, original Christianity didn't:
Have icons, iconostasis, discos, asterisk, byzantine king garb, overseer carpets (for bishops), dikirion and trikirion candles, didn't call their bishops master, didn't ritually prostrate, didn't cross themselves, didn't have prayer ropes, didn't pray in repetition, didn't even say trinity, didn't venerate icons, didn't venerate crosses, didn't "enchant" inadament objects and call them holy...

You certainly are sticking to something.

You are non-trinitarian now?  :o

I believe in God the Father.
I believe in the Son, who was also part of God.
and I believe in the Holy Spirit, which is part of God.

You do know that the Jews believed in many parts of God right?  Including "The evil spirit of God".  They also believe "The Lord your God is one".

But my point was, that original Christians didn't say "Trinity".


Of course not.  They didn't speak English (yes, I know it comes as a shock to you, but the King James isn't the original version).

They didn't say "New Testament" or "Anabaptist" either.

As for your strange theology...well, what can I say that St. Peter didn't at the end of his second epistle?
Fales.  Everyone knows that KJV 1611 is the only true version of the Bible. The church didn't even start until 1611, it was all just a sea of apostacy before that. Just ask noted Bible scholar Peter Ruckman.  He will guide you into all light.  ;D
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Iconodule on July 01, 2013, 03:31:57 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 01, 2013, 03:38:51 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church. 
I like that metaphor.  :)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: katherineofdixie on July 01, 2013, 03:47:40 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church. 

Excellent, ISTM that's what the Protestant Reformation did - hacked off the branches to make the tree look like a sapling.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 01, 2013, 03:56:05 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church. 

Excellent, ISTM that's what the Protestant Reformation did - hacked off the branches to make the tree look like a sapling.
I'm pretty sure the Protestant Reformation just picked up all the branches laying around on the ground, glued them together and declared that it was really the church.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: katherineofdixie on July 01, 2013, 03:57:52 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church. 

Excellent, ISTM that's what the Protestant Reformation did - hacked off the branches to make the tree look like a sapling.
I'm pretty sure the Protestant Reformation just picked up all the branches laying around on the ground, glued them together and declared that it was really the church.

Lol! ;D
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 01, 2013, 08:48:25 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church. 
You nailed it.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on July 01, 2013, 11:56:33 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church. 
You nailed it.

Seconded. A brilliant and potent demolition of yesh's "argument".
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: xariskai on July 02, 2013, 03:32:48 AM
(http://imgur.com/onRqa.jpg)

As is well-known, the earliest icons of Christ were widely reported to have be derived from an image “not made with hands”/αχειροποίητα cf. Mk 14.58; 2 Cor 5:1. Many of our forefathers grounded the iconographic tradition and God's own stamp of approval upon it not in the likes of catacomb art, but in an image produced by the finger of God Himself that was handed down in the Church. The Orthodox Church still observes a feast commemorating the transfer from Edessa to Constantinople of a relic known as the Holy Mandylion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa) “not made by hands."

Recently the Shroud of Turin was dated to the first century: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/27/new-experiments-suggest-shroud-of-turin-dates-to-first-century/ As Alveus has alluded to such a date for an artifact is earlier than the extant manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament itself.

I have always thought the Shroud images were a dead ringer for the ancient Pantokrator icons, gold coins from Justinian’s reign, etc. The images by the very degree of similarity itself seem to bear witness to the Shroud as a prototype. Comparing the images below, notice how the photo of the Shroud of Turin, the image of Christ from a gold coin during the reign of Justinian II (dating between AD 692 and 695), the Pantokrator icons from Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (built under the personal supervision of Emperor Justinian I), and the monastery at traditional Mt. Sinai etc. all look similar. Also compare below a 3D reconstruction of the Shroud image as depicted in a recent History Channel documentary.

Ian Wilson suggested the theory that the object venerated as the Mandylion from at least the sixth century was in fact the Shroud of Turin, folded so that only the face was visible and enclosed in a frame (Wilson, Ian, The Turin Shroud: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?). A tenth century codex, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69 refers to an eighth-century description of an imprint of Christ’s entire body left on a canvas kept in a church in Edessa: “King Abgar received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body” (in Latin: [non tantum] faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris). The scientist who performed the original C14 dating retracted his 1988 position that the Shroud was a medieval forgery in a peer reviewed scientific journal -he discovered the fabric he tested was a patch later sewed onto the garment to repair it; the date of the shroud at that point once again became an open question. Now with the Shroud being dated to the first century we might consider it, to the extent that the dating is deemed reliable, as an evidential witness to not only the Shroud itself, but the whole iconographic tradition which the early Christians said was based on something very much like the Shroud.

(http://imgur.com/O8AmG.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/5vD6J.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/GxXBg.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/IYjys.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/zfn3D.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/plyQx.jpg)
(http://imgur.com/32kuO.jpg)

I am also still impressed that a 2D object contained 3D information sufficient in itself to produce an image like this centuries before the invention of photography.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 12, 2013, 10:13:49 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church.  

The metaphor is incorrect & loaded.    As a sapling was created through the fruit of another tree.  In the torah we read "after its own kind".   Iconography is not after any kind, and was purely created by men.

Iconography was not written in our scriptures at all and there are not provable icons or usage of them.  They are a major part of EO theology, yet not in originality.   As the EO faith claims to be the original, why are there no writings by the earliest Christians, artifacts, or scriptures referencing icons or the veneration of them?   Even in the writings of the earliest saints...

Look, we can pot shot all we want guys, but there is this thing called the truth.  

I've asked for historical reference, proof, and writings of Christians between 0-150AD referencing the veneration of icons, use of icons, etc.   Also looking for artifacts of that time.

It think that is fair.

Immaturity & pot shots do not equate to proof.  They may make the EO feel better about their position, with an underlay of delusion.

As important and widespread use of iconography there is within the EO faith - which claims originality - why are there no writings about them or icons themselves (from 0-150ad)?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 12, 2013, 10:21:41 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church.  

The metaphor is incorrect & loaded.    As a sapling was created through the fruit of another tree.  In the torah we read "after its own kind".   Iconography is not after any kind, and was purely created by men.

Iconography was not written in our scriptures at all and there are not provable icons or usage of them.  They are a major part of EO theology, yet not in originality.   As the EO faith claims to be the original, why are there no writings by the earliest Christians, artifacts, or scriptures referencing icons or the veneration of them?   Even in the writings of the earliest saints...

Look, we can pot shot all we want guys, but there is this thing called the truth.  

I've asked for historical reference, proof, and writings of Christians between 0-150AD referencing the veneration of icons, use of icons, etc.   Also looking for artifacts of that time.

It think that is fair.

Immaturity & pot shots do not equate to proof.  They may make the EO feel better about their position, with an underlay of delusion.

As important and widespread use of iconography there is within the EO faith - which claims originality - why are there no writings about them or icons themselves (from 0-150ad)?
Iconography is not the tree, the Church is the tree. If you want to attack the metaphor, you have to at least know what the metaphor means. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 12, 2013, 10:26:46 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church.  

The metaphor is incorrect & loaded.    As a sapling was created through the fruit of another tree.  In the torah we read "after its own kind".   Iconography is not after any kind, and was purely created by men.

Iconography was not written in our scriptures at all and there are not provable icons or usage of them.  They are a major part of EO theology, yet not in originality.   As the EO faith claims to be the original, why are there no writings by the earliest Christians, artifacts, or scriptures referencing icons or the veneration of them?   Even in the writings of the earliest saints...

Look, we can pot shot all we want guys, but there is this thing called the truth.  

I've asked for historical reference, proof, and writings of Christians between 0-150AD referencing the veneration of icons, use of icons, etc.   Also looking for artifacts of that time.

It think that is fair.

Immaturity & pot shots do not equate to proof.  They may make the EO feel better about their position, with an underlay of delusion.

As important and widespread use of iconography there is within the EO faith - which claims originality - why are there no writings about them or icons themselves (from 0-150ad)?
Iconography is not the tree, the Church is the tree. If you want to attack the metaphor, you have to at least know what the metaphor means. 

I understand it.

So the sapling came from what?   THE FRUIT of another tree.

When Christ started the Christian faith it was the original.  It's fruit should bear fruit "after its own kind".

This metaphor actually gives credence to what I am asking about.  If iconography was originally part of the faith, then we'd have some fruit/branches/proof of it.   But it was not.

So I can only see iconography as "another plant" growing along side that tree.....   Whether or not is a weed... That's another topic.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 12, 2013, 10:47:27 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church.  

The metaphor is incorrect & loaded.    As a sapling was created through the fruit of another tree.  In the torah we read "after its own kind".   Iconography is not after any kind, and was purely created by men.

Iconography was not written in our scriptures at all and there are not provable icons or usage of them.  They are a major part of EO theology, yet not in originality.   As the EO faith claims to be the original, why are there no writings by the earliest Christians, artifacts, or scriptures referencing icons or the veneration of them?   Even in the writings of the earliest saints...

Look, we can pot shot all we want guys, but there is this thing called the truth.  

I've asked for historical reference, proof, and writings of Christians between 0-150AD referencing the veneration of icons, use of icons, etc.   Also looking for artifacts of that time.

It think that is fair.

Immaturity & pot shots do not equate to proof.  They may make the EO feel better about their position, with an underlay of delusion.

As important and widespread use of iconography there is within the EO faith - which claims originality - why are there no writings about them or icons themselves (from 0-150ad)?
Iconography is not the tree, the Church is the tree. If you want to attack the metaphor, you have to at least know what the metaphor means. 

I understand it.

So the sapling came from what?   THE FRUIT of another tree.

When Christ started the Christian faith it was the original.  It's fruit should bear fruit "after its own kind".

This metaphor actually gives credence to what I am asking about.  If iconography was originally part of the faith, then we'd have some fruit/branches/proof of it.   But it was not.

So I can only see iconography as "another plant" growing along side that tree.....   Whether or not is a weed... That's another topic.
The iconography would be the fruit of the tree.  Why would the first century church need icons of the Apostles?  They were talking directly with them.  We don't make icons of living persons.  You could just as easily say that there were no books of the Bible written in the first 30 years of the Church, why suddenly 30 years after its beginning does the Church need more books in the Bible?  What is an allowable timeframe from the time of Christ's death until something appears is it considered original?  There were heretics before the Gospels were written.  Should we accept them as more authentic because they are older?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 12, 2013, 10:50:37 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church.  

The metaphor is incorrect & loaded.

The "metaphor"-which is actually an analogy-is spot on.  The only thing it is loaded with is the truth.

Which is why you don't like it.

As a sapling was created through the fruit of another tree.  In the torah we read "after its own kind".   Iconography is not after any kind, and was purely created by men.
The images of the Tabernacle, Temple and Synagogue show otherwise.

Iconography was not written in our scriptures at all and there are not provable icons or usage of them.
Neither is the Table of Contents of the Biblical Canon, but you use ours (at least of the NT) anyways.

They are a major part of EO theology, yet not in originality.
Yes, we are familiar with your mantra.  No, it has not grown in strength by repetition.

"the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have beheld His Glory"..."He who has seen Me has seen the Father"..."But even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the icon of God, should shine on them. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."..."He is the icon of the invisible God...in Whom the Godhead was pleased to dwell."

We have the promise of Christ that Hell will never prevail over the Church-if the Church fell into idolatry, as you accuse her, then He is a liar.

We have no promise about you, just a warning:
I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....
No, the one St. (II) Peter (3) warned about:
Quote
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen

....

Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.
Just every Church ever discovered before the 4th century has them.

And the catacombs, which are full of them, went out of use in the 4th century.  By the 10th century, they were all but forgotten, a hidden surprise for the iconoclast Protestants a century after the Reformation.

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

You are following the Pharisee Saul, not St. Paul.

As the EO faith claims to be the original, why are there no writings by the earliest Christians, artifacts, or scriptures referencing icons or the veneration of them?   Even in the writings of the earliest saints..
You are the living proof that history should be done by historians.  And that too much crime TV shows are ruining juries.

Look, we can pot shot all we want guys, but there is this thing called the truth.

Yes, and you have proved yourself a stranger to it, while we know Him.

I've asked for historical reference, proof, and writings of Christians between 0-150AD referencing the veneration of icons, use of icons, etc.   Also looking for artifacts of that time.

It think that is fair.
Only if you can produce a Christian artifact of the same time period.

You guys used to challenge us for something predating Constantine.  And then the catacombs were discovered....

Immaturity & pot shots do not equate to proof.
Your posts are proof of that.

They may make the EO feel better about their position, with an underlay of delusion.
And your proof that you are not deluding yourself?

You have already accepted our proof, i.e. the Scriptures, while denying its source. Jesusisiamism is going to have to have its Joseph Smith Jr. moment to get the scriptures to "prove" its point.

As important and widespread use of iconography there is within the EO faith - which claims originality - why are there no writings about them or icons themselves (from 0-150ad)?
Why are there next to no writings, if not none, about them 200-313, when we have the actual images themselves (Dura Europas, catacombs, etc.)?

There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 14, 2013, 04:48:05 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church.  

The metaphor is incorrect & loaded.

The "metaphor"-which is actually an analogy-is spot on.  The only thing it is loaded with is the truth.

Which is why you don't like it.

As a sapling was created through the fruit of another tree.  In the torah we read "after its own kind".   Iconography is not after any kind, and was purely created by men.
The images of the Tabernacle, Temple and Synagogue show otherwise.

Iconography was not written in our scriptures at all and there are not provable icons or usage of them.
Neither is the Table of Contents of the Biblical Canon, but you use ours (at least of the NT) anyways.

They are a major part of EO theology, yet not in originality.
Yes, we are familiar with your mantra.  No, it has not grown in strength by repetition.

"the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have beheld His Glory"..."He who has seen Me has seen the Father"..."But even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the icon of God, should shine on them. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."..."He is the icon of the invisible God...in Whom the Godhead was pleased to dwell."

We have the promise of Christ that Hell will never prevail over the Church-if the Church fell into idolatry, as you accuse her, then He is a liar.

We have no promise about you, just a warning:
I know you are kind of being cute on this one, like saying I'm the heretic who Paul warned about....
No, the one St. (II) Peter (3) warned about:
Quote
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen

....

Icons in ornate served settings, being bowed to by clergy like that... The likenesses of things in heaven.   No proof in the 1st century, and very little proof of icons until the 4-5th century.
Just every Church ever discovered before the 4th century has them.

And the catacombs, which are full of them, went out of use in the 4th century.  By the 10th century, they were all but forgotten, a hidden surprise for the iconoclast Protestants a century after the Reformation.

Do you really think Paul warned about people trying to follow God's commands, or those who try to convince people to break God's commands?
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

You are following the Pharisee Saul, not St. Paul.

As the EO faith claims to be the original, why are there no writings by the earliest Christians, artifacts, or scriptures referencing icons or the veneration of them?   Even in the writings of the earliest saints..
You are the living proof that history should be done by historians.  And that too much crime TV shows are ruining juries.

Look, we can pot shot all we want guys, but there is this thing called the truth.

Yes, and you have proved yourself a stranger to it, while we know Him.

I've asked for historical reference, proof, and writings of Christians between 0-150AD referencing the veneration of icons, use of icons, etc.   Also looking for artifacts of that time.

It think that is fair.
Only if you can produce a Christian artifact of the same time period.

You guys used to challenge us for something predating Constantine.  And then the catacombs were discovered....

Immaturity & pot shots do not equate to proof.
Your posts are proof of that.

They may make the EO feel better about their position, with an underlay of delusion.
And your proof that you are not deluding yourself?

You have already accepted our proof, i.e. the Scriptures, while denying its source. Jesusisiamism is going to have to have its Joseph Smith Jr. moment to get the scriptures to "prove" its point.

As important and widespread use of iconography there is within the EO faith - which claims originality - why are there no writings about them or icons themselves (from 0-150ad)?
Why are there next to no writings, if not none, about them 200-313, when we have the actual images themselves (Dura Europas, catacombs, etc.)?

There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.

Look, being this way and acting stubborn does not validate your point at ALL.   You've been asked for proof.   Now in order to "prove a point", you asked me to provide writings about icons from 200-313A.D.  LOL.   Kind of burying your own hatchet.   If you can't find one, and limit the proof to redundant non-egg tempera drawings in a catacomb, I think there is a major problem....

The EO church validates icons, I asked for apologetics and proof of them in the earliest church.  You can't prove it, it's really that simple.   Icons were NOT an original part of Christianity.  To those saying that "why would they need them when they were alive in the 1st century...", is a ridiculous argument.  This is because there are many icons the EO has that do not have the apostles in them, such as the Trinity icons, icons of angels, and OT stories.

To my analogy argument about it being wrong, you just basically said "no it's right, yuh huh".   No backing.

Things created by God produce fruit after its own kind.  The original Christian church did not have icons, thus the "fruit" of icons attributed to the analogy would be wrong.   Besides, arguing with an analogy in order to prove a point when somebody asks for physical or written proof is rather... weak isn't it?

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 14, 2013, 04:49:06 PM
A fully grown tree looks a lot different from when it was a sapling. YiM's argument is essentially,"But it's got all these big branches, fruits, and flowers, and stuff, it can't be the same plant as that little sapling." If you try to hack off all the branches of a tree to try and make it look like a sapling, you'll just mutilate the tree and kill it. Same with the Church.  

The metaphor is incorrect & loaded.    As a sapling was created through the fruit of another tree.  In the torah we read "after its own kind".   Iconography is not after any kind, and was purely created by men.

Iconography was not written in our scriptures at all and there are not provable icons or usage of them.  They are a major part of EO theology, yet not in originality.   As the EO faith claims to be the original, why are there no writings by the earliest Christians, artifacts, or scriptures referencing icons or the veneration of them?   Even in the writings of the earliest saints...

Look, we can pot shot all we want guys, but there is this thing called the truth.  

I've asked for historical reference, proof, and writings of Christians between 0-150AD referencing the veneration of icons, use of icons, etc.   Also looking for artifacts of that time.

It think that is fair.

Immaturity & pot shots do not equate to proof.  They may make the EO feel better about their position, with an underlay of delusion.

As important and widespread use of iconography there is within the EO faith - which claims originality - why are there no writings about them or icons themselves (from 0-150ad)?
Iconography is not the tree, the Church is the tree. If you want to attack the metaphor, you have to at least know what the metaphor means. 

I understand it.

So the sapling came from what?   THE FRUIT of another tree.

When Christ started the Christian faith it was the original.  It's fruit should bear fruit "after its own kind".

This metaphor actually gives credence to what I am asking about.  If iconography was originally part of the faith, then we'd have some fruit/branches/proof of it.   But it was not.

So I can only see iconography as "another plant" growing along side that tree.....   Whether or not is a weed... That's another topic.
The iconography would be the fruit of the tree.  Why would the first century church need icons of the Apostles?  They were talking directly with them.  We don't make icons of living persons.  You could just as easily say that there were no books of the Bible written in the first 30 years of the Church, why suddenly 30 years after its beginning does the Church need more books in the Bible?  What is an allowable timeframe from the time of Christ's death until something appears is it considered original?  There were heretics before the Gospels were written.  Should we accept them as more authentic because they are older?

The trinity, icons of archangels, and OT stories...... There are way more icons than just NT apostles.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 14, 2013, 05:19:06 PM
Look, being this way and acting stubborn does not validate your point at ALL.   You've been asked for proof.   Now in order to "prove a point", you asked me to provide writings about icons from 200-313A.D.  LOL.   Kind of burying your own hatchet.   If you can't find one, and limit the proof to redundant non-egg tempera drawings in a catacomb, I think there is a major problem....

The EO church validates icons, I asked for apologetics and proof of them in the earliest church.  You can't prove it, it's really that simple.   Icons were NOT an original part of Christianity.  To those saying that "why would they need them when they were alive in the 1st century...", is a ridiculous argument.  This is because there are many icons the EO has that do not have the apostles in them, such as the Trinity icons, icons of angels, and OT stories.

To my analogy argument about it being wrong, you just basically said "no it's right, yuh huh".   No backing.

Things created by God produce fruit after its own kind.  The original Christian church did not have icons, thus the "fruit" of icons attributed to the analogy would be wrong.   Besides, arguing with an analogy in order to prove a point when somebody asks for physical or written proof is rather... weak isn't it?
Rather than ramble on upon your already disproven thesis, why don't you focus at your task at hand:
There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.
And for your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_from_silence
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 14, 2013, 06:54:42 PM
Look, being this way and acting stubborn does not validate your point at ALL.   You've been asked for proof.   Now in order to "prove a point", you asked me to provide writings about icons from 200-313A.D.  LOL.   Kind of burying your own hatchet.   If you can't find one, and limit the proof to redundant non-egg tempera drawings in a catacomb, I think there is a major problem....

The EO church validates icons, I asked for apologetics and proof of them in the earliest church.  You can't prove it, it's really that simple.   Icons were NOT an original part of Christianity.  To those saying that "why would they need them when they were alive in the 1st century...", is a ridiculous argument.  This is because there are many icons the EO has that do not have the apostles in them, such as the Trinity icons, icons of angels, and OT stories.

To my analogy argument about it being wrong, you just basically said "no it's right, yuh huh".   No backing.

Things created by God produce fruit after its own kind.  The original Christian church did not have icons, thus the "fruit" of icons attributed to the analogy would be wrong.   Besides, arguing with an analogy in order to prove a point when somebody asks for physical or written proof is rather... weak isn't it?
Rather than ramble on upon your already disproven thesis, why don't you focus at your task at hand:
There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.
And for your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_from_silence

I understand what you are saying, but seriously ialmisry, this is like chopping your own foot with an axe.   There are very few instances of "cave art" from that time frame, couple those "latter years" with a lack of text attributes, and it only gives more credence to the argument I am presenting.  The text attributes would not only lack the mention thereof, but also lack the mention of the veneration of the images themselves, the use of the images, etc.

So  IF I came back and said "well, there are none", and the physical examples are scratchy art in catacombs, would that justify what you are saying?   All it would mean to me is they didn't exist in the context how the EO use them today.   Scratchy cave/catacomb art vs. venerated, blessed, and "beam up" veneration...

So it may be nice if you produced any writings and teachings (such as venerating an icon is the same as venerating the person in the image).    Yes, it is later on than the ideal years, but it may be something more than nothing.

Also of the 3 links you posted, they are interesting and are some of the arguments I am presenting.   I'm asking for "something", as I have no reason to believe that icons existed in original Christianity.   We have many artifacts and writings, but nothing about icons from that time.  Shouldn't "SOMETHING" have survived?  At what point do these arguments hold validity?

The arguments from 150A.D.
A) There were no surviving icons
B) There were no writings of icons
C) No writings or teachings of veneration of icons, blessing icons, or the usage of icons, images, etc.

So if there are no writings, artifacts, fragments of artifacts, teachings of icons, etc., why would it not be safe to conclude there were no icons then?

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 14, 2013, 09:59:30 PM
Rather than ramble on upon your already disproven thesis, why don't you focus at your task at hand:

And for your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_from_silence

I understand what you are saying, but seriously ialmisry, this is like chopping your own foot with an axe.   There are very few instances of "cave art" from that time frame, couple those "latter years" with a lack of text attributes, and it only gives more credence to the argument I am presenting.  The text attributes would not only lack the mention thereof, but also lack the mention of the veneration of the images themselves, the use of the images, etc.

So  IF I came back and said "well, there are none", and the physical examples are scratchy art in catacombs, would that justify what you are saying?   All it would mean to me is they didn't exist in the context how the EO use them today.   Scratchy cave/catacomb art vs. venerated, blessed, and "beam up" veneration...

So it may be nice if you produced any writings and teachings (such as venerating an icon is the same as venerating the person in the image).    Yes, it is later on than the ideal years, but it may be something more than nothing.

Also of the 3 links you posted, they are interesting and are some of the arguments I am presenting.   I'm asking for "something", as I have no reason to believe that icons existed in original Christianity.   We have many artifacts and writings, but nothing about icons from that time.  Shouldn't "SOMETHING" have survived?  At what point do these arguments hold validity?

The arguments from 150A.D.
A) There were no surviving icons
B) There were no writings of icons
C) No writings or teachings of veneration of icons, blessing icons, or the usage of icons, images, etc.

So if there are no writings, artifacts, fragments of artifacts, teachings of icons, etc., why would it not be safe to conclude there were no icons then?
Orthodoxy is original Christianity.  You are not.

We are not interested in your 21st century fruit from your 20th century sapling.

Rather than arguing from ignorance so that you may appear wise in your own eyes, focus on your task at hand:
There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 14, 2013, 10:23:10 PM
Rather than ramble on upon your already disproven thesis, why don't you focus at your task at hand:

And for your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_from_silence

I understand what you are saying, but seriously ialmisry, this is like chopping your own foot with an axe.   There are very few instances of "cave art" from that time frame, couple those "latter years" with a lack of text attributes, and it only gives more credence to the argument I am presenting.  The text attributes would not only lack the mention thereof, but also lack the mention of the veneration of the images themselves, the use of the images, etc.

So  IF I came back and said "well, there are none", and the physical examples are scratchy art in catacombs, would that justify what you are saying?   All it would mean to me is they didn't exist in the context how the EO use them today.   Scratchy cave/catacomb art vs. venerated, blessed, and "beam up" veneration...

So it may be nice if you produced any writings and teachings (such as venerating an icon is the same as venerating the person in the image).    Yes, it is later on than the ideal years, but it may be something more than nothing.

Also of the 3 links you posted, they are interesting and are some of the arguments I am presenting.   I'm asking for "something", as I have no reason to believe that icons existed in original Christianity.   We have many artifacts and writings, but nothing about icons from that time.  Shouldn't "SOMETHING" have survived?  At what point do these arguments hold validity?

The arguments from 150A.D.
A) There were no surviving icons
B) There were no writings of icons
C) No writings or teachings of veneration of icons, blessing icons, or the usage of icons, images, etc.

So if there are no writings, artifacts, fragments of artifacts, teachings of icons, etc., why would it not be safe to conclude there were no icons then?
Orthodoxy is original Christianity.  You are not.

We are not interested in your 21st century fruit from your 20th century sapling.

Rather than arguing from ignorance so that you may appear wise in your own eyes, focus on your task at hand:
There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.

I was talking about Mt. Sinai in another thread.  At the monastery in the official one, they claim to have the original burning bush, alive and well.

So if they can have the original burning bush, alive and well, and nobody has an example of a writing or icon from 150AD, there is a problem.

ialmisry, you are 100% missing the point.  I don't even get your "assignment". 

But to humor you,

Council of Elvira (306 A.D.) (Synod) Canon 36 - “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshipped not be painted on the walls.”

Well I found something in the years speaking of veneration of images (or forbidding them in churches). 

Now I assign you something from 150A.D. or earlier please PROMOTING the veneration of images or icons themselves.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 14, 2013, 11:15:29 PM
Orthodoxy is original Christianity.  You are not.

We are not interested in your 21st century fruit from your 20th century sapling.

Rather than arguing from ignorance so that you may appear wise in your own eyes, focus on your task at hand:
There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.

I was talking about Mt. Sinai in another thread.  At the monastery in the official one, they claim to have the original burning bush, alive and well.

So if they can have the original burning bush, alive and well, and nobody has an example of a writing or icon from 150AD, there is a problem.
No, as we have several icons that are claimed to be from the brush of St. Luke and from the 1st century.

And even if we didn't, it still wouldn't be a problem.  The monastery in Sinai dates well after we have attestation enough of the veneration of icons, but the oldest icons there do not date to its founding.  There are a variety of reasons for that, but you are already having problems with historical evidence.

ialmisry, you are 100% missing the point.
No, I am on point. That your "argument" has no point isn't my problem.

I don't even get your "assignment".
I'm sure you don't.

But to humor you,

Council of Elvira (306 A.D.) (Synod) Canon 36 - “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshipped not be painted on the walls.”

Well I found something in the years speaking of veneration of images (or forbidding them in churches). 
Ah, alas!  The date of the Council is not as secure as you would like.  It has been dated from 300 to 325.

And, worse for you, only the first 21 canons are original.  The rest were added at a later date.

Now I assign you something from 150A.D. or earlier please PROMOTING the veneration of images or icons themselves.
you first have to defend your dating of Elvira, and prove the canon in question (which is mistranslated, btw: the original reflects the distinction between adoration and veneration) was in the original body of canons issued.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Seraphim98 on July 14, 2013, 11:49:42 PM
Quote
Now I assign you something from 150A.D. or earlier please PROMOTING the veneration of images or icons themselves.

I don't understand your persistence on this point. You might as well asked for the autographs of the gospels, or ask for a copy of Palestinian liturgical rubrics for the same period. Consider, the Church didn't even set down it's liturgical instructions or other matters relating to the inner life of the Church…the stuff that was only the business of baptized Christians in good standing until the time of St. Basil. He actually said as much, that it was only recently (to him) that these things were being copied down to preserve them against loss or degradation after so many generations from the apostles.  These things were not recorded because they were considered holy and thus not a public matter, and not appropriate to write down lest it fall into the hands of revilers and persecutors who would make a mockery of these things and use them to ensnare Christians for further persecution.  

My point, there was relatively little of the day to day life of the Church recorded for its first three and a half centuries, so making a demand for a specific sort of document and commentary from that era is not reasonable.

You also brought up a local council in the early 4th century that seems to regard iconographic depictions (or something like them) in appropriate for Christian temples. Without disputing this particular council, at least on this point it's opinions did not carry sufficient force in the rest of the Christian world to challenge the presence of images. Moreover icons were not an issue for most until the time of the iconoclastic controversy, but in the end a council spoke to the WHOLE church on the matter and laid out the theology supporting icons, the appropriate use and appointment of them within the scope of Christian worship and devotion, and it also identified, warned against and censured a catalogue of various abuses of images in the Church which were thereby disallowed to continue.  

Since you are willing to post from a local council of the Church a prohibition of certain images, and I must assume you consider it to speak with sufficient universal force as to have some authority (else why quote it), are you equally willing to consider the authority of a universal council of the Church which spoke directly to the making and use of images in the Church, showing and distinguishing between appropriate content and use and that which was inappropriate.  The 7th Council did this. It was the last council of the undivided Church. The faith it was was universally acknowledged East and West as the faith of the Apostles.

Do you imagine those who sat in a local council would insist upon their own lights in the face of a proclamation of the canons of a universal council of the Church?  Even Eusebius who was originally an Arian, and who was not overly fond of images in private hands, relented his Arianism when the first council of the Church condemned the teaching of Arius. Would you expect Eusebius, or the members of any truly Christian local council of ages past to assert themselves in any manner contrary to the findings and directives of an Ecumenical Council?  I don't think so. So, an appeal to them as a point of contradiction of the authority and witness of the 7th council strikes me as a wee bit irrational. The fact that this or that council preceded an Ecumenical Council in time means nothing except as a snapshot of history at that time and place. What is stately clearly in the texts of the 7th council makes it equally clear, that on the point of images in the Church that in large respects that earlier council, while it may have had some valid concerns that needed addressing in it's time, it did not speak on that point with the mind of the Church and the Holy Spirit….because as you know a true council is not just a true council because someone prints an event flyer saying that it is…it is a true council because it correctly speaking the mind of the Spirit and the Church in accordance with the tradition it had received from the Apostles. So records of councils with elements contrary to the teaching of any accepted council of the church only demonstrate a particular error on their part, not a doctrinal fault with the Church at a later era.

Why not take another tack as a complementary approach. We know from records of the third century icons of Christ, the Theotokos were present along with images of the Cross. These did not appear in a vacuum, did they. Their presence in the Christian community…and their broad if not at the time universal acceptance of them surely presupposes some sort of developmental history. Just because there is little or no documentation at our end of history does not mean these were innovations.

To that end let me share this from the early developmental stage of icons/images in the Church it's a very special stick figure of Jonah and the Whale from the 1st century. Read the article. So while it is not a "document" per se, it is very clearly a 1st century use of a biblical image in a Christian contest. Which  shows two things, first, that Christians used images, even crude ones from the earliest generations of the Church; second that these images were in use by private individuals and not just things reserved for places of Christian worship.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2013, 12:58:53 AM
To that end let me share this from the early developmental stage of icons/images in the Church it's a very special stick figure of Jonah and the Whale from the 1st century. Read the article. So while it is not a "document" per se, it is very clearly a 1st century use of a biblical image in a Christian contest. Which  shows two things, first, that Christians used images, even crude ones from the earliest generations of the Church; second that these images were in use by private individuals and not just things reserved for places of Christian worship.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/


Interesting:

Quote
If the markings are Christian as the researches believe, the engravings represent -- by several centuries -- the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found, dating to about 70 A.D.

The findings and their interpretation are certain to be controversial, experts said, since most scholars are skeptical of any Christian archaeological remains from so early a period.

So even if/when examples of Christian images dating from the first two centuries of Christianity are discovered, most scholars would be skeptical anyway.  There's just no satisfying some people! 

I was talking about Mt. Sinai in another thread.  At the monastery in the official one, they claim to have the original burning bush, alive and well.

So if they can have the original burning bush, alive and well, and nobody has an example of a writing or icon from 150AD, there is a problem.

There's a difference between a living plant and an icon. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 15, 2013, 08:01:29 AM
Summary of this thread.

"I don't believe in icons. Prove these were here from the beginning"

*evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence.  Give me REAL evidence"

*more evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence either."  *Argument from silence postulated*. "Therefore, icons did not exist and the Orthodox Church is wrong."
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 15, 2013, 09:26:36 AM
To that end let me share this from the early developmental stage of icons/images in the Church it's a very special stick figure of Jonah and the Whale from the 1st century. Read the article. So while it is not a "document" per se, it is very clearly a 1st century use of a biblical image in a Christian contest. Which  shows two things, first, that Christians used images, even crude ones from the earliest generations of the Church; second that these images were in use by private individuals and not just things reserved for places of Christian worship.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/


Interesting:

Quote
If the markings are Christian as the researches believe, the engravings represent -- by several centuries -- the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found, dating to about 70 A.D.

The findings and their interpretation are certain to be controversial, experts said, since most scholars are skeptical of any Christian archaeological remains from so early a period.

So even if/when examples of Christian images dating from the first two centuries of Christianity are discovered, most scholars would be skeptical anyway.  There's just no satisfying some people! 

I was talking about Mt. Sinai in another thread.  At the monastery in the official one, they claim to have the original burning bush, alive and well.

So if they can have the original burning bush, alive and well, and nobody has an example of a writing or icon from 150AD, there is a problem.

There's a difference between a living plant and an icon. 
I'm surprised that Jesusisiam didn't claim because we had the original Mount of Sinai and not an icon there was a problem.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 15, 2013, 09:27:37 AM
Summary of this thread.

"I don't believe in icons. Prove these were here from the beginning"

*evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence.  Give me REAL evidence"

*more evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence either."  *Argument from silence postulated*. "Therefore, icons did not exist and the Orthodox Church is wrong."
That pretty much sums it up, but I can sum it up even better: "I know better than the Church."
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: LBK on July 15, 2013, 10:04:01 AM
Summary of this thread.

"I don't believe in icons. Prove these were here from the beginning"

*evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence.  Give me REAL evidence"

*more evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence either."  *Argument from silence postulated*. "Therefore, icons did not exist and the Orthodox Church is wrong."
That pretty much sums it up, but I can sum it up even better: "I know better than the Church."

Excellent answers from both of you!  :laugh:
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 15, 2013, 02:44:33 PM
Orthodoxy is original Christianity.  You are not.

We are not interested in your 21st century fruit from your 20th century sapling.

Rather than arguing from ignorance so that you may appear wise in your own eyes, focus on your task at hand:
There's a task for you: show us some writing on icons from 200-313 AD.

I was talking about Mt. Sinai in another thread.  At the monastery in the official one, they claim to have the original burning bush, alive and well.

So if they can have the original burning bush, alive and well, and nobody has an example of a writing or icon from 150AD, there is a problem.
No, as we have several icons that are claimed to be from the brush of St. Luke and from the 1st century.

And even if we didn't, it still wouldn't be a problem.  The monastery in Sinai dates well after we have attestation enough of the veneration of icons, but the oldest icons there do not date to its founding.  There are a variety of reasons for that, but you are already having problems with historical evidence.

ialmisry, you are 100% missing the point.
No, I am on point. That your "argument" has no point isn't my problem.

I don't even get your "assignment".
I'm sure you don't.

But to humor you,

Council of Elvira (306 A.D.) (Synod) Canon 36 - “It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshipped not be painted on the walls.”

Well I found something in the years speaking of veneration of images (or forbidding them in churches). 
Ah, alas!  The date of the Council is not as secure as you would like.  It has been dated from 300 to 325.

And, worse for you, only the first 21 canons are original.  The rest were added at a later date.

Now I assign you something from 150A.D. or earlier please PROMOTING the veneration of images or icons themselves.
you first have to defend your dating of Elvira, and prove the canon in question (which is mistranslated, btw: the original reflects the distinction between adoration and veneration) was in the original body of canons issued.

ialmisry, you are absolutely making 0% sense at all.   So are you stating the EO has no written texts of icons in the years you assigned me?  That only gives credence to my argument doesn't it?

LOL, I'm just not getting your logic or point.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 15, 2013, 02:58:34 PM
ialmisry, you are absolutely making 0% sense at all.   So are you stating the EO has no written texts of icons in the years you assigned me?  That only gives credence to my argument doesn't it?
No, it blows a huge, gaping hole in it.
LOL, I'm just not getting your logic or [have a] point.
Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 15, 2013, 03:07:45 PM
Summary of this thread.

"I don't believe in icons. Prove these were here from the beginning"

*evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence.  Give me REAL evidence"

*more evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence either."  *Argument from silence postulated*. "Therefore, icons did not exist and the Orthodox Church is wrong."

No, this sums up the thread.

Please submit to me evidence of icons - either icons or writings of veneration, icons themselves, etc., until 150A.D.

"Evidence" = Pagan art making fun of Christians, Cave art from nearly 300 A.D.
Commentary= YIM stinks, he made up his religion, we are the original church, etc. etc.
Evidence rejected = "Hey guys pagan art making fun of Christians does not prove that icons existed".
More "evidence" = Controversial shroud of Turin, and other icons from 500++ A.D.
More commentary = "Well you made up your faith and EO is the original, look at your blind arguments, argument of silence"
More "evidence rejected" = The shroud of Turin is not a venerated icon, and not even known if it was original.  More of a legend/fable as is the "icon of St. Luke".

So I'm rejecting cave art from well past early Christianity, pagan art making fun of Christians, and the legends of the shroud of Turin & the icon of St. Luke.

Also, I've asked for writings from the earliest Christians or evidence of icons.

Then ial wants me to go find EO texts on icons from 300 LOL, as if it promotes his point.   As much as icons are used in the EO church, if they were original, they'd be written about in as much volume as the church writes about them today "or at LEAST" written about in a couple of spots.

I've been fair and the answers have been once again, pot shots, ridiculous, dodging the point, out of time frame, or dodging the question.

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 15, 2013, 03:10:12 PM
ialmisry, you are absolutely making 0% sense at all.   So are you stating the EO has no written texts of icons in the years you assigned me?  That only gives credence to my argument doesn't it?
No, it blows a huge, gaping hole in it.
LOL, I'm just not getting your logic or [have a] point.
Fixed that for you.

I'd like for you to explain to everybody here on EO.net how me finding evidence & writings on icons by the EO church from 200-313 (or lack thereof) would prove that icon veneration, use, etc. existed in 150A.D. or before.

I think you need to re-fix the oddball fix you gave me.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 15, 2013, 04:20:54 PM
Summary of this thread.

"I don't believe in icons. Prove these were here from the beginning"

*evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence.  Give me REAL evidence"

*more evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence either."  *Argument from silence postulated*. "Therefore, icons did not exist and the Orthodox Church is wrong."

No, this sums up the thread.

Please submit to me evidence of icons - either icons or writings of veneration, icons themselves, etc., until 150A.D.

"Evidence" = Pagan art making fun of Christians, Cave art from nearly 300 A.D.
Commentary= YIM stinks, he made up his religion, we are the original church, etc. etc.
Evidence rejected = "Hey guys pagan art making fun of Christians does not prove that icons existed".
More "evidence" = Controversial shroud of Turin, and other icons from 500++ A.D.
More commentary = "Well you made up your faith and EO is the original, look at your blind arguments, argument of silence"
More "evidence rejected" = The shroud of Turin is not a venerated icon, and not even known if it was original.  More of a legend/fable as is the "icon of St. Luke".

So I'm rejecting cave art from well past early Christianity, pagan art making fun of Christians, and the legends of the shroud of Turin & the icon of St. Luke.

Also, I've asked for writings from the earliest Christians or evidence of icons.

Then ial wants me to go find EO texts on icons from 300 LOL, as if it promotes his point.   As much as icons are used in the EO church, if they were original, they'd be written about in as much volume as the church writes about them today "or at LEAST" written about in a couple of spots.

I've been fair and the answers have been once again, pot shots, ridiculous, dodging the point, out of time frame, or dodging the question.

"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 15, 2013, 04:32:31 PM
Evidence rejected = "Hey guys pagan art making fun of Christians does not prove that icons existed".
I guess icons and religious statues don't exist in the 21st century.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg/300px-Buddy_christ.jpg)
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/madonna.jpg)(http://weblog.timoregan.com/uploaded_images/Santa-on-the-cross-748854.jpg)(http://www.hsarre.com/i/Christmas%20Stuff/Santa_Cross_for_web.jpg)
I won't put up more blasphemous selections.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2013, 05:23:54 PM
I heart Buddy Christ.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Asteriktos on July 15, 2013, 05:30:59 PM
Middle santa looks like he's doing a curtsey (or dance or something)...
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2013, 06:06:07 PM
Middle Santa reminds me of the crucifixion scene in The Life of Brian.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 15, 2013, 08:34:39 PM
I hope I never look at any of those pictures again.  They make me mad.  >:(
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 15, 2013, 09:39:21 PM
I hope I never look at any of those pictures again.  They make me mad.  >:(
Cheer up. Think of the ones I refused to put up.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 15, 2013, 09:47:55 PM
Oh pretty please, post those! 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 15, 2013, 10:02:04 PM
NO.  How about some nice icons.  That would be much better.  :)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Asteriktos on July 15, 2013, 10:18:49 PM
NO.  How about some nice icons.  That would be much better.  :)

Well that would fit in with the general theme of the thread  :police:

(http://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the-three-holy-hierarchs-saints-basil-the-great-john-chrysostom-gregory-the-theologian.jpg)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 05:12:06 PM
Summary of this thread.

"I don't believe in icons. Prove these were here from the beginning"

*evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence.  Give me REAL evidence"

*more evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence either."  *Argument from silence postulated*. "Therefore, icons did not exist and the Orthodox Church is wrong."

No, this sums up the thread.

Please submit to me evidence of icons - either icons or writings of veneration, icons themselves, etc., until 150A.D.

"Evidence" = Pagan art making fun of Christians, Cave art from nearly 300 A.D.
Commentary= YIM stinks, he made up his religion, we are the original church, etc. etc.
Evidence rejected = "Hey guys pagan art making fun of Christians does not prove that icons existed".
More "evidence" = Controversial shroud of Turin, and other icons from 500++ A.D.
More commentary = "Well you made up your faith and EO is the original, look at your blind arguments, argument of silence"
More "evidence rejected" = The shroud of Turin is not a venerated icon, and not even known if it was original.  More of a legend/fable as is the "icon of St. Luke".

So I'm rejecting cave art from well past early Christianity, pagan art making fun of Christians, and the legends of the shroud of Turin & the icon of St. Luke.

Also, I've asked for writings from the earliest Christians or evidence of icons.

Then ial wants me to go find EO texts on icons from 300 LOL, as if it promotes his point.   As much as icons are used in the EO church, if they were original, they'd be written about in as much volume as the church writes about them today "or at LEAST" written about in a couple of spots.

I've been fair and the answers have been once again, pot shots, ridiculous, dodging the point, out of time frame, or dodging the question.

"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
You still have my assignment.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 05:14:24 PM
Evidence rejected = "Hey guys pagan art making fun of Christians does not prove that icons existed".
I guess icons and religious statues don't exist in the 21st century.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg/300px-Buddy_christ.jpg)
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/madonna.jpg)(http://weblog.timoregan.com/uploaded_images/Santa-on-the-cross-748854.jpg)(http://www.hsarre.com/i/Christmas%20Stuff/Santa_Cross_for_web.jpg)
I won't put up more blasphemous selections.

So your argument here is because there is pagan/blasphemous art and icons exist today, that icons must have existed in early Christianity because pagan art did.

Face it, icons are not provable 150A.D. or before.  They were not written about nor do they have artifacts of them from that time period. 

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 05:57:06 PM
"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 05:58:19 PM
So your argument here is because there is pagan/blasphemous art and icons exist today, that icons must have existed in early Christianity because pagan art did.

Face it, icons are not provable 150A.D. or before.  They were not written about nor do they have artifacts of them from that time period.  
Face it, iconoclasm is not provable 150A.D. or before.  It was not written about nor does it have artifacts of it from that time period.

We're waiting for you writing on icons in the third century.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Father H on July 16, 2013, 07:09:44 PM
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Father H on July 16, 2013, 07:12:08 PM
^clarification... ignored by Jesusisiam
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 07:13:15 PM
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 16, 2013, 08:07:43 PM
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.
The problem is, until jesusisiam has an actual video with date authentication showing that first century Christians owned and venerated icons, he isn't going to accept it. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 09:23:32 PM
"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.

Yes, and I asked for EARLY CHRISTIAN examples.  You gave me examples well after 150.    That's why I reject the "cave art".

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

I asked the question FIRST when starting this thread, you haven't done your homework.   Doesn't matter what you ask me about as it holds no relevance.   If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs), nor writings on veneration - then guess what - it only gives more credence to what I am saying.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 09:37:46 PM
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.

Yes, I saw it too.

It says "may be".
So there ya have it.  It "may be" the first icon.  It sure looks like icons.  LOL  LOL!!! 
Done in egg tempera.  I wonder if they blessed it, venerated it etc.  Perhaps it was a beam up kiss to a fish.

You can't make this stuff up.  A "speculative" Christian drawing of a fish in a Jewish tomb depicting "Jonah" from the Old testament being passed by EO Christians as an icon.   

Did the researchers even consider Jonah 3 "3 And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying, 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.

Good grief.

Newsflash - they had paint in those times, and paintings.   Icons were "made up" and you people are venerating them thinking you are beaming up the kiss to the saints/god/Theotokos/or Christ.  They were not part of the earliest Christian church.   



Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on July 16, 2013, 09:40:34 PM
How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 16, 2013, 09:55:44 PM
Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 09:57:58 PM
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.
The problem is, until jesusisiam has an actual video with date authentication showing that first century Christians owned and venerated icons, he isn't going to accept it. 

No, I asked for
1) An icon
2) A writing about an icon, veneration of an icon, or how icons are important in worship.... Or anything about icons.  

Nobody has provided that.  I've gotten latter cave art, and a scribble of the Jonah story in a Jewish tomb.  Where's the icons?  Where's the talk of venerating them?

Original church???? "Original" with things made up hundreds of years after.

Funny how in nearly every EO book or text today, almost every single one talks about icons.  But in every text I can find from 150AD or before, there is NOT ONE MENTION of them, including in our scriptures.  Nor is there an example of them.

But look at how important they are today.
http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg (http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:

Is it seriously so impossible for any of you to see this direct disobedience to God?   Icons were not in 150, there were no writings of venerations, blessing them, etc.   They sure do exist now, are bowed to, and served.  

I've stated it before, the problem with Orthodoxy is that its either all or none.  There are wonderful things in the EO faith no doubt.  Too bad one can't be an EO Christian and refuse to venerate icons.  Think about it.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 09:59:31 PM
How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?

Biro, my point isn't to trash the church, my point is to find truth pushing the muck that a lot of powerful men in charge have hit Christianity with.

We both still love Christ.

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on July 16, 2013, 10:01:18 PM
You call icons 'muck'? Are you kidding?!

I can't believe you continue to get away with it.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 16, 2013, 10:06:14 PM
It says "may be".
So there ya have it.  It "may be" the first icon.  It sure looks like icons.  LOL  LOL!!! 
Done in egg tempera.  I wonder if they blessed it, venerated it etc.  Perhaps it was a beam up kiss to a fish.

You can't make this stuff up. 

Is your central claim that, because we don't find in the first century Byzantine Greek paintings in egg tempera paints on specially carved wooden boards which were called icons, there were never "icons" at all?  That "icon" equals "Byzantine Greek paintings in egg tempera on specially carved wooden boards"?  If so, that's just plain stupid.  That's like claiming that there was no such thing as a Bible in the earliest Christian church because books as we know them were only developed in the third and fourth centuries.

You're right: you can't make this stuff up.  

Quote
Icons were "made up" and you people are venerating them thinking you are beaming up the kiss to the saints/god/Theotokos/or Christ.   

LOL.  You're typing a message on a computer and publishing it on an internet website thinking you are communicating with actual people.  What a stupid thing to do.  
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheMathematician on July 16, 2013, 10:07:58 PM
You call icons 'muck'? Are you kidding?!

I can't believe you continue to get away with it.

This is the free for all, so as far as I know, he can
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 10:10:09 PM
Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    

Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).

Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.   That's why I'm so rough with icons.  The Eucharist belief, I'm there - but icons were not original in any form or fashion.  It only confirms to me that I was deceived and taught something that was wrong in fact - DIRECTLY defying a commandment from God.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on July 16, 2013, 10:10:29 PM
Yeah, a nice place for him to vegetate like mold does in real life.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheMathematician on July 16, 2013, 10:16:38 PM
Yesh

An honest question for you. Even if what you say is true, and icons were not originally part of the Church,what does it matter? Just because it is not original does not make it less true, or deserving to be followed. If the Orthodox Church is in fact the fullness of Truth, the Church that Christ founded, does it matter if they were there to begin with, as long as it is correct.


I suppose my question becomes this, what is more important, true Christianity or original?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 10:19:16 PM
"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.

Yes, and I asked for EARLY CHRISTIAN examples.  You gave me examples well after 150.    That's why I reject the "cave art".
Which is why we reject your inability to evaluate historical evidence.

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.
I call Him Yasuu' now.  But then, I speak the language.  If I only spoke Greek, in the 1st century, I would call him Iesus.

Again, another argument you continue to press which just confirms ignorance.

And the 1st century of my Church is the 1st century, when Our Lord founded her.

The family of the Lord were referred to in the second century as the Desposynoi "of the master's."  Given the usage of honorifics, in the 1st century I would be addressing as "Master" Mar (the usage is not directly related to the usage you are whining about, for no reason, however).

And I'd be venerating icons.  Just wouldn't have to defend them to non-existent iconoclasm.

Did you locate those third century writings on icons yet?

I asked the question FIRST when starting this thread, you haven't done your homework.
 
Au contraire, I've done both yours and mine.

Doesn't matter what you ask me about as it holds no relevance.
 
IOW you have no evidence to show.

If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)
(http://www.homsonline.com/images/DuraEuropos/DuraEuropos_Church2.jpg)(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/ashm/large/ash_ashm_an1988_21_large.jpg)
nor writings on veneration - then guess what - it only gives more credence to what I am saying.
I don't have to guess on your incredulity.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 10:19:32 PM
You call icons 'muck'? Are you kidding?!

I can't believe you continue to get away with it.

This section is called "free for all", and I'm in "religious topics".   I can't my faith issues with EO in faith issues because I have been told (by a moderator) that I was not Orthodox (even though I am fully baptized Orthodox and never was excommunicated).   But anyway, I could understand that...

So this section is for "Hot topics" with "debate" intended.

Biro, we can agree in other areas (and we do trust me), but these are deep rooted issues, controversial, and can be harsh.   As an EO Christian (not currently practicing), who has a parent who is a priest, and I've attended St. Vlad's - some of my issues are going to be harsh.

I apologize if they offend.   When I see icons I see them as unoriginal, as there is no proof of them.  Calling them.   "Muck" is layers of stuff thrown on top of something, often not needed, unoriginal, etc.  

Just please remember this section is for debate - at least that is what I've been told.  
The description on this section is - Hot/controversial/debate-intended topics dealing with Religion.

You know what's really funny though - as much as we can all fight here:
We both love God, his son, love his mother...  We both want salvation and to be good Christians. :)

Again sorry if it offends.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 10:20:54 PM
How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?
;D ;D ;D This is turning into an absurd discussion about if Virgin Mary or Abraham was the first nestorian.
Of course. Nestorius was the first Nestorian. Hence the term.

Some people refuse to learn from others' mistakes.
(http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/mis.jpg)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on July 16, 2013, 10:21:57 PM
I'm done for now, I think my head's going to explode.

Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 10:26:04 PM
Yesh

An honest question for you. Even if what you say is true, and icons were not originally part of the Church,what does it matter? Just because it is not original does not make it less true, or deserving to be followed. If the Orthodox Church is in fact the fullness of Truth, the Church that Christ founded, does it matter if they were there to begin with, as long as it is correct.


I suppose my question becomes this, what is more important, true Christianity or original?

Thank you for at least contributing something thought provoking.

The issue at hand for me is, what is "true" Christianity.   Is it the way it was Originally in practice, writings, etc., or is it the way the EO church is today?

For the correctness, I am not sure, and that's what I'm trying to figure out.  The commandments tell us not to bow or serve images in the likeness of anything in Heaven or on the Earth...  EO apologetics try to get around this by saying "it's not the image we venerate, but those depicted in the image".  

Perspective is troublesome.   Do I respect the perspective of those venerating images in hundreds of years after the church incepted, or those who were there with God, or directly after he established the church itself?

It's difficult, and a constant struggle for me.  I've accepted things at face value once in Orthodoxy, whatever they said goes - then I went to a WCC event, and a lot that I thought was part of Orthodoxy was not...

So I really don't know the answer to your question, which is good, but kind of laid out my thoughts.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 10:28:58 PM
Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    

Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).
Yes.  Mor Ephrem has correct ones, and you made yours up.

Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.
You never tire of plagiarizing the Church's Scriptures.

If you reject the tree, reject the fruit as well.  Someone very wise-the Wisdom of God in fact-said that.

That's why I'm so rough with icons.  The Eucharist belief, I'm there - but icons were not original in any form or fashion.  It only confirms to me that I was deceived and taught something that was wrong in fact - DIRECTLY defying a commandment from God.
relics are a form of icon.

Have you found that third century writing on icons?
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 10:31:30 PM
"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.

Yes, and I asked for EARLY CHRISTIAN examples.  You gave me examples well after 150.    That's why I reject the "cave art".
Which is why we reject your inability to evaluate historical evidence.

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.
I call Him Yasuu' now.  But then, I speak the language.  If I only spoke Greek, in the 1st century, I would call him Iesus.

Again, another argument you continue to press which just confirms ignorance.

And the 1st century of my Church is the 1st century, when Our Lord founded her.

The family of the Lord were referred to in the second century as the Desposynoi "of the master's."  Given the usage of honorifics, in the 1st century I would be addressing as "Master" Mar (the usage is not directly related to the usage you are whining about, for no reason, however).

And I'd be venerating icons.  Just wouldn't have to defend them to non-existent iconoclasm.

Did you locate those third century writings on icons yet?

I asked the question FIRST when starting this thread, you haven't done your homework.
 
Au contraire, I've done both yours and mine.

Doesn't matter what you ask me about as it holds no relevance.
 
IOW you have no evidence to show.

If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)
(http://www.homsonline.com/images/DuraEuropos/DuraEuropos_Church2.jpg)(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/ashm/large/ash_ashm_an1988_21_large.jpg)
nor writings on veneration - then guess what - it only gives more credence to what I am saying.
I don't have to guess on your incredulity.

The years on those were post 150.

ialmisry - THINK - Desposynoi means "of the master" - others say "of the Lord".  The person in reference is Jesus, who is God.  This is much different than calling a man - a bishop, master, in direct defiance of what the true master commanded.

I did not locate the 3rd century writings on icons yet.  If you can find some please share.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 10:33:14 PM
How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?

Biro, my point isn't to trash the church, my point is to find truth pushing the muck that a lot of powerful men in charge have hit Christianity with.
Oh? Who would they be, as your iconoclastic forebears had the power and killed the Orthodox for a century?

Calling the image of Someone you claim to love muck.  Nice.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 10:34:44 PM
Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    

Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).
Yes.  Mor Ephrem has correct ones, and you made yours up.

Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.
You never tire of plagiarizing the Church's Scriptures.

If you reject the tree, reject the fruit as well.  Someone very wise-the Wisdom of God in fact-said that.

That's why I'm so rough with icons.  The Eucharist belief, I'm there - but icons were not original in any form or fashion.  It only confirms to me that I was deceived and taught something that was wrong in fact - DIRECTLY defying a commandment from God.
relics are a form of icon.

Have you found that third century writing on icons?

Whoa wait brother, relics are kept in the tradition of Elisha and the bones rising, not icons.

No I have not found any writings about icons from the third century.  If you know of any, feel free to post.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 10:36:20 PM
How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?

Biro, my point isn't to trash the church, my point is to find truth pushing the muck that a lot of powerful men in charge have hit Christianity with.
Oh? Who would they be, as your iconoclastic forebears had the power and killed the Orthodox for a century?

Calling the image of Someone you claim to love muck.  Nice.

You mean the image made in the likeness of something in heaven that men bow down to and serve?

I don't agree with the iconoclastic behavior, nor any violence, nor the iconodules, nor their violence.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 10:37:26 PM
Sorry been a good debate to night brothers and sisters, but several possums are trying to break into the chicken coops, gotta run.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 16, 2013, 10:45:03 PM
YiM,

I'll give you credit: that's a much more interesting way to sign out than "Duty calls", as the gnostic fellow did. 

Mad props.

More in a moment.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 16, 2013, 10:46:40 PM
Agreed.  How do you fight with a guy who is out laying down the smack on some possums?  Go get 'em, YiM!  Throw and icon at them, that will scare them off.  ;)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 16, 2013, 10:58:19 PM
Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Dare I ask where I might read them?  Dare I?  :)  

Honestly, I can't believe that anyone would have an issue with the idea that he was called Yeshua.  But if you take that historical fact and insist that it must be that exact form of the name which is used and no other, that's preposterous.  Even JW's aren't that anal about "Jehovah", and I know because I spoke with one for over an hour on a flight about just that topic.

Quote
Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).

If it's alright by you, I'd rather start a thread about it here and learn about your views on the matter.  After all, I didn't bring up Nazarene Christians, you did, and publicly.  But I am intrigued, since we have a demonstrable lineage that goes all the way back, I don't see how there could be a different view other than "We don't like what you believe"--but it can't be "You aren't real Nazarenes", because there were Nazarenes in India before St John wrote the Book of Revelation.  

Quote
Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.  

I don't think the claim is "We do it the original way" as in "We do things exactly as they did in the first century".  A lot has changed in the way human beings do everything since those days, and religious practices certainly adapt over time.  

I think when people say that, they mean "What we do is rooted in the same faith as those first believers".  Honestly, if a first century follower of Christ took a time machine trip to the present day, they wouldn't recognise a lot of what we do in my parish, and they wouldn't recognise a lot of what you do in your church.  But once they learned a little about what they were experiencing, I think they'd feel at home in our church and would probably think yours was nuts.  Because while both our churches' worship practices have evolved (or been created out of nothing) over time, only one agrees with the faith they believed.  
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 16, 2013, 11:05:42 PM
(http://www.homsonline.com/images/DuraEuropos/DuraEuropos_Church2.jpg)(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/ashm/large/ash_ashm_an1988_21_large.jpg)
The years on those were post 150.
If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GeOVN3FLpCU/T6az4xA_0GI/AAAAAAAAVGo/W8zko6N1Fr0/s400/paralytic.jpg)
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/archeo/images/madonna_big.jpg)(http://www.rdrop.com/~stmary/tsw030.jpg)(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UOJjUH2o_wM/SoLyOAggrII/AAAAAAAABac/5ID-Lm0atio/s400/Icon+of+Panagia+and+the+Prophets.jpg)
"And when they came into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him" Mat. 2:11

The date that Madonna is within the century after 150.

Have your found the writing on her image in the third century?

ialmisry - THINK
Physician, heal thyself.
- Desposynoi means "of the master" - others say "of the Lord".  The person in reference is Jesus, who is God.
I said as much:
The family of the Lord were referred to in the second century as the Desposynoi "of the master's."
This is much different than calling a man - a bishop, master, in direct defiance of what the true master commanded.
So you say, but the 1st century Church did not so believe.

I notice that you ignored the rest of that sentence:
...Given the usage of honorifics, in the 1st century I would be addressing as "Master" Mar (the usage is not directly related to the usage you are whining about, for no reason, however).
So much for your skills in Aramaic.

I did not locate the 3rd century writings on icons yet.  If you can find some please share.
No, I've done enough of your homework.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Father H on July 16, 2013, 11:20:34 PM
Sorry been a good debate to night brothers and sisters, but several possums are trying to break into the chicken coops, gotta run.

It really has not been a good debate.  You are repeatedly committing three logical fallacies in debate, namely the strawman fallacy, the "avoiding the issue" fallacy, and the "moving the goalpost" fallacy.  You said that icons today bear no resemblance to anything in the catacombs, evidence is shown to the contrary, and you avoid acknowledging that your claim was proven false.  Why should anyone ever talk to you again until you acknowledge this?  Isa hasn't even whipped out many other examples, including the Trinity catacomb icon.  Instead of acknowledging you are wrong, you keep committing the moving the goalpost fallacy.  SHAME ON YOU.    
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 16, 2013, 11:56:28 PM
Sorry been a good debate to night brothers and sisters, but several possums are trying to break into the chicken coops, gotta run.

It really has not been a good debate.  You are repeatedly committing three logical fallacies in debate, namely the strawman fallacy, the "avoiding the issue" fallacy, and the "moving the goalpost" fallacy.  You said that icons today bear no resemblance to anything in the catacombs, evidence is shown to the contrary, and you avoid acknowledging that your claim was proven false.  Why should anyone ever talk to you again until you acknowledge this?  Isa hasn't even whipped out many other examples, including the Trinity catacomb icon.  Instead of acknowledging you are wrong, you keep committing the moving the goalpost fallacy.  SHAME ON YOU.    

Wait, what evidence?   A scratchy fish?   Shroud of Turin?   A donkey head blasphemous pagan drawing?   Catacomb art where halos don't exist? (From post 150).

I'm directly confronting the evidence presented, as they were NOT from the earliest Christian church.   I don't know about you guys, but most likely, we are all not going to live for 110++ years.  This is how long the church existed AFTER our savior ascended into Heaven until 150 A.D.  Certainly after the spread of Christianity, the writings of the gospels, and the broad spread teachings of the faith, icons would have existed, evidence would have existed, writings would have existed... But they don't.

I do not understand WHY my arguments are strawman fallacy to you.  I'm directly asking for EVIDENCE from 150 A.D. or before.  Writings, teachings, or icons themselves.   Not shrouds, legends, or myths.

Since a strawman fallacy is when a person ignores a persons position, then substitutes with distorted/misrepresented/exaggerated version of the position.

My original question (position) was asking if there was PROOF of icons by writing or examples of icons themselves from 150 AD or before.

(strawman fallacy response) I was given pagan examples of art, catacomb art from well past 150AD, myths and legends.  This was presented as factual evidence.  My position was attacked based on this argument of incorrect evidence, and I was called wrong and attacked based on this incorrect evidence.   THIS is called strawman fallacy.

I believe the "shame on me" is that my position is retaining solid ground.


Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 17, 2013, 12:15:18 AM
Isa - you asked for a writing about icons.  Here is a writing

Tertullian ca. 160-225
"Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: "You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them."

So writings existed post 150A.D. and I don't have an exact date of when Tertullian wrote it.

Lactantius 240-320
"But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous. But they fear lest their religion should be altogether vain and empty if they should see nothing present which they may adore, and therefore they set up images; and since these are representations of the dead, they resemble the dead, for they are entirely destitute of perception. But the image of the ever-living God ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this name from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out of stone, or bronze, or other material, but man himself, since he has both perception and motion, and performs many and great actions. Nor do the foolish men understand, that if images could exercise perception and motion, they would of their own accord adore men, by whom they have been adorned and embellished, since they would be either rough and unpolished stone, or rude and unshapen wood, had they not been fashioned by man.

Man, therefore, is to be regarded as the parent of these images; for they were produced by his instrumentality, and through him they first had shape, figure, and beauty. Therefore he who made them is superior to the objects which were made. And yet no one looks up to the Maker Himself, or reverences Him: he fears the things which he has made, as though there could be more power in the work than in the workman."


ALSO:  According to the book "Praying with icons" by Jim Forest  on page 8 he states that Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria (both who lived in those years you assigned) were against iconography.

Anyway, your assignment wasn't "who was against" or "who they were", it was merely to find writings about iconography in those years.

There ya go.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Seraphim98 on July 17, 2013, 01:18:51 AM
Dear Yeshuaisiam,

Let me help put to rest your appeal to Tertulian and the council of Elvira, et al.

Also…with respect to the image of Jonah and the fish/whale, we know it is a Christian image for two reasons. The writing on the image invokes the resurrection…a Christian linkage between Jonah and Christ, not Jewish (sign of Jonah, remember from the Gospels), and second the place it was found had several crosses cut into the walls…hardly Jewish, but definantely evidence the cross was venerated/held in high honor in the first century Church, being used as a sign of the faith.

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 17, 2013, 01:25:16 AM
Isa - you asked for a writing about icons.  Here is a writing

Tertullian ca. 160-225
"Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: "You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them."

So writings existed post 150A.D. and I don't have an exact date of when Tertullian wrote it.

Lactantius 240-320
"But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous. But they fear lest their religion should be altogether vain and empty if they should see nothing present which they may adore, and therefore they set up images; and since these are representations of the dead, they resemble the dead, for they are entirely destitute of perception. But the image of the ever-living God ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this name from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out of stone, or bronze, or other material, but man himself, since he has both perception and motion, and performs many and great actions. Nor do the foolish men understand, that if images could exercise perception and motion, they would of their own accord adore men, by whom they have been adorned and embellished, since they would be either rough and unpolished stone, or rude and unshapen wood, had they not been fashioned by man.

Man, therefore, is to be regarded as the parent of these images; for they were produced by his instrumentality, and through him they first had shape, figure, and beauty. Therefore he who made them is superior to the objects which were made. And yet no one looks up to the Maker Himself, or reverences Him: he fears the things which he has made, as though there could be more power in the work than in the workman."


ALSO:  According to the book "Praying with icons" by Jim Forest  on page 8 he states that Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria (both who lived in those years you assigned) were against iconography.

Anyway, your assignment wasn't "who was against" or "who they were", it was merely to find writings about iconography in those years.

There ya go.
Alas!  Your quote mine failed you:
Quote
Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents. Numbers 21:8-9 I say nothing of what was figured by this cure. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. (Against Marcion Bk. 2.22)
To which you can add
Quote
Why, once more, did the same Moses, after prohibiting the likeness of everything, set up the golden serpent on the pole; and as it hung there, propose it as an object to be looked at for a cure? Did he not here also intend to show the power of our Lord’s cross, whereby that old serpent the devil was vanquished—whereby also to every man who was bitten by spiritual serpents, but who yet turned with an eye of faith to it, was proclaimed a cure from the bite of sin, and health for evermore? (ibid. Bk.3.18)
Tertullian is arguing against Marcion, someone who both denied that the God at Sinai was the True God Whose Whole Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ, and Whose Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  Hence is not talking about icons-at least not icons of the first three centuries.  However, he does witness to the thinking of veneration of images:
Quote
Tertullian was so rigorous that at times he linked all images with idolatry. The Marcionites asked how was it possible to reconcile Old Tetstament images with a rigorist interpretation of the second commandment. They rejected the Old Testament God altogether thus avoiding the problem for them. Tertullian had to counter their assertions by creating a special class of images which could manifest the power of what they prefigured.

Fr. Steven Bigham: “What is therefore, the result of Tertullian’s writings on the question of images? The ambiguity remains. He accepted the equation “image=idol” but also accepted non-idolatrous images. He justified these latter images not only by appeal to an extraordinary divine precept, which he invoked not only the bronze snake, but also for the enlarging the category of permitted images that escaped the thunder of the 2nd Commandment. Having thus accepted, some 500 years before the iconoclastic crisis, the essential argument of the iconodules in reference to Old Testament images, Tertullian can only with great difficulty be called as a witness for the supposed hostility of early Christians toward all figurative art.” (Early Christians Attitudes Toward Images, pg. 127)
http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/07/17/tertullian-on-images-in-the-early-church/

As for Lactantius, I've dealt with him before:
SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
Quote
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Quote
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.
Lactantius is talking about idols, not icons.  He is addressing those opposed to the Church, not those within the Church.  His arguments are pagan Stoic ones that had already been argued amongst themselves against their own idolatry, not a critique of Church veneration of icons.  There is also a question about his date-he was born 240, but he was born pagan, and did not receive baptism until the end of the century.

His Stoic arguments would be adapted, however, to the Tradition of the Image and Likeness of God.

The assignment, however, was for third century writings on contemporary icons.  Not Old Testament exegesis, nor apologetics against pagans.  " "Merely to find writings about iconography in those years."

So you better go find them.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 17, 2013, 07:56:38 PM
Isa - you asked for a writing about icons.  Here is a writing

Tertullian ca. 160-225
"Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: "You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them."

So writings existed post 150A.D. and I don't have an exact date of when Tertullian wrote it.

Lactantius 240-320
"But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous. But they fear lest their religion should be altogether vain and empty if they should see nothing present which they may adore, and therefore they set up images; and since these are representations of the dead, they resemble the dead, for they are entirely destitute of perception. But the image of the ever-living God ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this name from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out of stone, or bronze, or other material, but man himself, since he has both perception and motion, and performs many and great actions. Nor do the foolish men understand, that if images could exercise perception and motion, they would of their own accord adore men, by whom they have been adorned and embellished, since they would be either rough and unpolished stone, or rude and unshapen wood, had they not been fashioned by man.

Man, therefore, is to be regarded as the parent of these images; for they were produced by his instrumentality, and through him they first had shape, figure, and beauty. Therefore he who made them is superior to the objects which were made. And yet no one looks up to the Maker Himself, or reverences Him: he fears the things which he has made, as though there could be more power in the work than in the workman."


ALSO:  According to the book "Praying with icons" by Jim Forest  on page 8 he states that Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria (both who lived in those years you assigned) were against iconography.

Anyway, your assignment wasn't "who was against" or "who they were", it was merely to find writings about iconography in those years.

There ya go.
Alas!  Your quote mine failed you:
Quote
Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents. Numbers 21:8-9 I say nothing of what was figured by this cure. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. (Against Marcion Bk. 2.22)
To which you can add
Quote
Why, once more, did the same Moses, after prohibiting the likeness of everything, set up the golden serpent on the pole; and as it hung there, propose it as an object to be looked at for a cure? Did he not here also intend to show the power of our Lord’s cross, whereby that old serpent the devil was vanquished—whereby also to every man who was bitten by spiritual serpents, but who yet turned with an eye of faith to it, was proclaimed a cure from the bite of sin, and health for evermore? (ibid. Bk.3.18)
Tertullian is arguing against Marcion, someone who both denied that the God at Sinai was the True God Whose Whole Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ, and Whose Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  Hence is not talking about icons-at least not icons of the first three centuries.  However, he does witness to the thinking of veneration of images:
Quote
Tertullian was so rigorous that at times he linked all images with idolatry. The Marcionites asked how was it possible to reconcile Old Tetstament images with a rigorist interpretation of the second commandment. They rejected the Old Testament God altogether thus avoiding the problem for them. Tertullian had to counter their assertions by creating a special class of images which could manifest the power of what they prefigured.

Fr. Steven Bigham: “What is therefore, the result of Tertullian’s writings on the question of images? The ambiguity remains. He accepted the equation “image=idol” but also accepted non-idolatrous images. He justified these latter images not only by appeal to an extraordinary divine precept, which he invoked not only the bronze snake, but also for the enlarging the category of permitted images that escaped the thunder of the 2nd Commandment. Having thus accepted, some 500 years before the iconoclastic crisis, the essential argument of the iconodules in reference to Old Testament images, Tertullian can only with great difficulty be called as a witness for the supposed hostility of early Christians toward all figurative art.” (Early Christians Attitudes Toward Images, pg. 127)
http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/07/17/tertullian-on-images-in-the-early-church/

As for Lactantius, I've dealt with him before:
SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
Quote
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Quote
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.
Lactantius is talking about idols, not icons.  He is addressing those opposed to the Church, not those within the Church.  His arguments are pagan Stoic ones that had already been argued amongst themselves against their own idolatry, not a critique of Church veneration of icons.  There is also a question about his date-he was born 240, but he was born pagan, and did not receive baptism until the end of the century.

His Stoic arguments would be adapted, however, to the Tradition of the Image and Likeness of God.

The assignment, however, was for third century writings on contemporary icons.  Not Old Testament exegesis, nor apologetics against pagans.  " "Merely to find writings about iconography in those years."

So you better go find them.

Earth to ialmisry:

You are seriously ruining your own argument.   I don't even understand why you'd assign something like that, as the lack of writing and examples from 150+ to 313, only prove my point better.

The quotes were not about context anyway.

Ridiculous, seriously, ridiculous points you are making.  The assignment is ridiculous as it only proves my point more.

Lactantius was writing about icons as well as idols.

ial, it's admitted in the Orthodox book "praying with icons".   Even the EO admit this!  What you are presenting just makes non-documented points to win an argument on a forum.

The quote from Tertullian was addressing images and how they were different from the serpent on the staff.
Wow brother....

Here let me lay it out REALLY clear for you because you are not seeing the point.

Tertullian's quote:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

So basically you have Moses using a serpent's staff which cured (tool):  Tertullian found this acceptable.  A tool was used.

Then you have bowing down to a similitude of things which are in heaven, earth, and in the waters - Tertullian used the word "latent" (definition - present and capable of emerging or developing but not now visible, obvious, active, or symptomatic ).   He used the words "latent idolatry" - meaning capable of emerging or developing into idolatry.    (then it goes on) "FOR HE ADDS: You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them".

(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)

Again - Tertullian:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

There's your assignment.  There's somebody in Early Christianity teaching against bowing to images in the likeness of things in heaven or Earth.

Of course then there's God (you know)  Exodus 20:4-5 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

Okay, what are the clergy doing in the photo above?  Let's just keep this REALLY REALLY simple:
1) They have made images in the likeness of anything in Heaven.  Do you agree?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

If you answer no to either of these two questions, then you are absolutely 100% delusional.  

Forget your assignment, I believe I completed it anyway -

I started this thread and I asked for either:
1) An icon from 150 A.D. or before
2) Writings about icons and/OR the use of them in veneration

Nobody has produced.  I've been given legends only, and twisted logic.


Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 17, 2013, 08:04:11 PM
Dear Yeshuaisiam,

Let me help put to rest your appeal to Tertulian and the council of Elvira, et al.

Also…with respect to the image of Jonah and the fish/whale, we know it is a Christian image for two reasons. The writing on the image invokes the resurrection…a Christian linkage between Jonah and Christ, not Jewish (sign of Jonah, remember from the Gospels), and second the place it was found had several crosses cut into the walls…hardly Jewish, but definantely evidence the cross was venerated/held in high honor in the first century Church, being used as a sign of the faith.

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?

Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.

I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.   Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 17, 2013, 08:11:12 PM
Here is my opinion about this whole thing.  I venerate icons because the Church tells me it is beneficial.  For me the much greater issue is that, if I believe that the Eucharist is truly Christ's body and blood, I need to be able to explain why it happens and in what circumstances.  Obviously, I can't just hang out in my kitchen, pour a glass of wine and pull a slice of bread out of the breadbox and say a magical incantation and suddenly it is the Body and Blood of Christ.  Scripture is quite clear that worship must be done in the context of the Church.  If it is the Church that sanctions such things, I need to know which Church it is.  Given that the gate of hell can't prevail against the Church, it has to be one of the ones that at least profess to have been around since the beginning.  That throws out protestantism and all other reformed traditions. I am left with RC, EO and OO.  I went with the one that made the most sense to me from a patristic standpoint.  You will note, however, that none of those traditions are iconoclasts.  If you accept that Eucharistic worship is the True Body and Blood of Christ, I don't know how you can hold to iconoclasm.  While I may not fully understand the veneration of icons, I accept it because I TRUST that the Church that is capable of turning bread and wine into Flesh and Blood is also capable of telling me what is beneficial for my spiritual wellbeing.

Until I am able to get a satisfactory explanation on how an iconoclastic Church is able to explain how Eucharist works, I am going to stick with the Church that has given me a good explanation on it, because for me, the Eucharist is MUCH more important that the veneration of icons.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 17, 2013, 10:59:30 PM
Earth to ialmisry:
Heaven to JesusisIam:
(http://cueflash.com/cardimages/questions/thumbnails/7/0/6807209.jpg)

You are seriously ruining your own argument.
Yeah, I'll take my chances.
I don't even understand why you'd assign something like that,
I'm sure you don't.
as the lack of writing and examples from 150+ to 313, only prove my point better.
Are you boasting of your lack of understanding?

The quotes were not about context anyway.
Then why were they removed from their context?
Ridiculous, seriously, ridiculous points you are making.  The assignment is ridiculous as it only proves my point more.
Well, we do have to

Lactantius was writing about icons as well as idols.
No, he was not.  Of course, it helps to be familiar with the debates of the day-meaning, the pagan debates with pagans over the use of idols-to know exactly what he is talking about, and where he got it from.
ial, it's admitted in the Orthodox book "praying with icons".
I've personally met and talked with Jim Forrest several times (but not in a while).  He's a nice guy, but not infallible.  And he would be the first to tell you so.  He learned to come to the Holy Tradition of the Church as well, and he is a passionate (despite his dispassionate demeanor) believer in it.
Even the EO admit this!
I know, given that no one ever believed in Jesusisiamism before you, and it will be forgotten after you leave it or leave the earth, that the idea that personal popehood does not exist-instant Tradition: just add opinion to the Church's Scripture-but it does not work that way.  Even if what you are trying to put in his mouth had come from his heart.

What you are presenting just makes non-documented points to win an argument on a forum.
Oh, I play for bigger stakes.  A year before I became Orthodox, I was still burning icons.  So I know this foolishness when I see it.

The quote from Tertullian was addressing images and how they were different from the serpent on the staff.
Wow brother....
Same
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UOJjUH2o_wM/Sq1bQwsU3_I/AAAAAAAABxg/ZAXl_ndYWuU/s400/Prophet+Moses+as+Type+of+Christ's+Cross.JPG)(http://priestmatthewjackson.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/the_crucifixion20_of_the_lord.jpg)(http://www.monomakhos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/serpent-1.png)
Different
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YqbW-vXjykA/ThB6fQnvpmI/AAAAAAAAA_k/0SXxt4Kjb7w/s320/WINGED+SERPENT+%2528EGYPT+1%2529.jpg)(http://historical.benabraham.com/assets/images/08serpent.jpg)(http://www.redicecreations.com/winterwonderland/quetzalcoatl1.jpg)(http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/miscimages/SerpentAltar.jpg)
(http://www.native-science.net/Divine_Serpent-filer/image003.gif)
That last one is special for you.
Here let me lay it out REALLY clear for you because you are not seeing the point.
If that were true, I would ask guidance from someone who could see, not from the blind.

Tertullian's quote:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

So basically you have Moses using a serpent's staff which cured (tool):  Tertullian found this acceptable.  A tool was used.
an image was used.

Then you have bowing down to a similitude of things which are in heaven, earth, and in the waters - Tertullian used the word "latent" (definition - present and capable of emerging or developing but not now visible, obvious, active, or symptomatic ).   He used the words "latent idolatry" - meaning capable of emerging or developing into idolatry.    (then it goes on) "FOR HE ADDS: You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them".
(http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg)
"they saw the young child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him" Matthew 2:11
"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." Matthew 28:9
"And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him." Matthew 28:17

Of course, you are free to join the Jews and Muslims in denying that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Just change your name to "MosesdidnotseeIAm" or "Muhammaddoesnotknowwhoheis."

Again - Tertullian:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

There's your assignment.  There's somebody in Early Christianity teaching against bowing to images in the likeness of things in heaven or Earth.
to someone who denied that the God who gave the commandments to Moses was the same "God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" and denied that the Word took flesh and dwelt among us, and hence denied that Christ was "the icon of the invisible God" as St. Paul preached.

And he is just repeating what was written in the 13th century.  Nothing on the second century.

Of course then there's God (you know)  Exodus 20:4-5 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

Okay, what are the clergy doing in the photo above?  Let's just keep this REALLY REALLY simple:
1) They have made images in the likeness of anything in Heaven.  Do you agree?
2) Are they bowing down to them?
Real simple-just look to the icon in the middle to the right.

"they saw the young child with Mary His mother" she who held Him Whom the heavens could not hold "and fell down, and worshipped Him"

If you answer no to either of these two questions, then you are absolutely 100% delusional.
Again, we have to bow to your expertise at devising delusions.
Forget your assignment, I believe I completed it anyway -
No, you haven't.  IOW, you failed, defeated in your attempt to prevail where Christ says the gates of Hell never will.

I started this thread and I asked for either:
1) An icon from 150 A.D. or before
2) Writings about icons and/OR the use of them in veneration
Our Lord asks, either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Nobody has produced.  I've been given legends only
ah, proving the warning of Matthew 7:6
and twisted logic.
Proverbs 26:5
You argued from ignorance, and we argued from the wisdom of the Church, the Body of the Wisdom of God.

His intent was that now, through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms. Epheisians 3:10.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: ialmisry on July 17, 2013, 11:36:32 PM
Dear Yeshuaisiam,

Let me help put to rest your appeal to Tertulian and the council of Elvira, et al.

Also…with respect to the image of Jonah and the fish/whale, we know it is a Christian image for two reasons. The writing on the image invokes the resurrection…a Christian linkage between Jonah and Christ, not Jewish (sign of Jonah, remember from the Gospels), and second the place it was found had several crosses cut into the walls…hardly Jewish, but definantely evidence the cross was venerated/held in high honor in the first century Church, being used as a sign of the faith.

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?
that is what Our Scripture says: Matthew 12:40.
But since you want to hack at the Tree of Life, the Church, as corrupt, you cannot pick that good fruit.
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
Supposedly the Jews didn't have images, remember?

I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.
(http://fallacyaday.com/images/45.%20Moving%20the%20Goalposts.png)(http://towhichireplied.com/images/moving_goalpostsSM.jpg)(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fxLshpUpn1k/T396a7r6jHI/AAAAAAAAAUI/ShmkbFEB-JA/s400/Moving+The+Goalposts!.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/BuAqMYE.jpg)
look under "Special pleading"
Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RC5K98C5L._SY300_.jpg)
The fruit of our Tree.

You can keep your fruit.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/21/article-1059192-02BE410200000578-893_468x315.jpg)
I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.
For those who can evaluate historical evidence, do what Jesusisiam cannot: read the literary evidence of icons and look at the iconography programs of the Churches that survive, from before 730 and after 843. Compare.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 18, 2013, 12:06:04 AM
Of course, you are free to join the Jews and Muslims in denying that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Just change your name to "MosesdidnotseeIAm" or "Muhammaddoesnotknowwhoheis."

LOL!
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Seraphim98 on July 18, 2013, 03:58:01 AM
Quote
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?

Yeshuaisiam, this is not worthy of you. No, I don't believe Christians believed Christ was resurrected from a great fish. I believe early Christians took the image and story of Jonah and the whale as a type that prefigured Christ. I also believe that Jesus said that the only sign that generation would receive was the sign of the prophet Jonah. So since Christ identified His own resurrection with the Jonah story, it follows that his disciples and followers would be inclined to do the same and make use of the Jonah and the whale story as a reference to resurrection in Christ our God.

Quote
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
If you are referencing the place where the bone box was found, the crosses present strongly suggest that in addition to being or having been Jewish, this was a Christian grave…very likely that of a believing Jew of that time.

Quote
I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.   Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

The proof…or at least the arguments hardly get any better. It completely demolish any reliance on Tertulian because his habit seems to be say whatever it is he feels he needs to say to win an argument. He is inconsistent with himself.

Elvira was put out of your reach one either one of two points. 1. The seemingly anti image canons were the voice of a local not a universal council, and these canons if they were indeed against images were largely ignored. Further if anti imagistic they were overruled and corrected at the 7th council. OR 2. given that this council happened during the Diocletian persecution the prohibition was not against images per se, but against painting them on the walls. This would be a protection against desecration of worship places by those persecuting them. And it is consistent with the way the Church dealt with other materials associated with corporate worship. The scriptures were hidden during the week (the Little Entrance is the survival of the fetching of them from whoever had the guardianship), The bread used was kept secret, as were the chalice and discos, and what's more, the service itself was committed to memory by the clergy lest it fall into profane hands and be made an object of public abuse or ridicule. They took "Holy things for the Holy" very serious back then.  This last fact, attested to by none less than St. Basil, probably speaks as well to the dearth of writings concerning icons and other matters of the inner life of the Church.

Quote
I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.

What writing do you have of the sacraments? Details of the Divine Liturgy from the Apostolic era Church? Or just some broad references to their existence and benefit?  Also you are arguing from a vacuum. You leap from I don't know of anything written on them from the 1st couple of centuries to an interpretation that suggests either they weren't important or weren't allowed.  You no knowledge of what once was, nor of what was lost during the 150 years of the iconoclastic controversy.  The documents you want may have had their last copies destroyed then.  We don't know one way or the other.  If you have read anything Orthodox about the history of icons you know their use did not spring full blown throughout the Church. It began locally and became universal. 

Consider we do have archeology sites of Jewish synagogues from the first couple of centuries AD, they have lots of Bible story mosaics on their walls. Is it likely that Christian when they had independent places of worship shied away from doing the same thing with both Old and New Testament stories?  Granted the craftsmanship on the little Jonah and the whale engraved bone box was pretty low…stick figure stuff, it shows however crudely  images were part of Christian piety in the earliest generations of the Church…now whether those images were venerated the way we do now, personally I would sort of doubt it initially, though I imagine certain items associated with the Lord and His Mother would have been treated with a great deal of reverence and care. 

Given that the earliest know extant icon of the sort we now recognize is found on a sarcophagus dated around 270 AD, assuming you are going to exclude St. Luke's work, and the Holy Mandylion as unreliable legends, it's not reasonable to go looking for a full blown expression or theological discussion of them (that did not become necessary until several hundreds of years later) in Apostolic and immediately post apostolic times. The use of icons develop and grew, with the primary fonts being the Church around Jerusalem and Alexandria. Remember the funerary portraits of Egypt and Palestine…well those of martyrs were attached to their sarcophagi. And it became common fairly soon to bring the relics of Martyrs into the places of worship in their ossuary boxes…which their image attached. You want first century proof of this, then I invite you to take a trip to Alexandria. Go to the Cathedral of St. Mark.  They will direct you to a little stair near the front of the Church, It goes down to their catacombs, and one of the first tombs you see, if that of St. Mark. Christians have been worshiping on that spot from Apostolic times. They build their cathedral over St. Mark's grave….and you better believe they have images of St. Mark…also, they are Coptic, and not in communion with the E.O. since the falling out at the Council of Chalcedon.  Showing honor to the relics of Christian Sts. and Martyrs has a very deep history in the Church…Apostolically deep, and it was doubtless in that era or shortly thereafter formal veneration of Sts. relics were established…and part and parcel to those relics were their containers, many of which possessed images, not only taken from the Bible, but of the person themselves.  And you can see by the time of the council of Elvira (305) and the writings of Eusebius, that by the dawn of the fourth century icons were wide spread and commonly used in conjunction with Christian worship. To reiterate a point…not of this appeared in a vacuum over night. It grew and developed.

So frankly, I don't think there is much to find icon wise from 150 back…assuming much of anything that old has survive. Other than a few special examples the nature of Christian liturgical art from the earliest centuries is limited to the Cross, Biblical references, borrowed symbolic images (good shepherd) , and rebus images (ICTHUS). It wasn't until the late third century, that anything like modern icons make a broad appearance.

So, by in large while present in small numbers here and there, they did not become an inseparable and necessary part of the teaching of the Gospel until the time of the Iconoclastic controversy.  That was when the theology and the meaning of the icons present in the Church were examined in detail. That's when rules were given to distinguish between right use, questionable use, and unquestionably prohibited use…and that examination came at the price of the blood of the faithful. From that point on images were a key resource for the affirmation of the reality of the incarnation of Christ, and have remained so ever since.

In short, you ask for impossible things, interpret the absence of these impossible things to suit your own fancy, all the while ignoring the testimony of the Church and Her Councils.  I don't really know what more is to be said. Orthodox accept the authority of the councils as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church and offering Her governance. The last Ecumenical Council spoke on, and affirmed the theology and right use of icons in the Church. The matter has been closed for over a 1000 years. Is it better to believe God or man? God has spoken in the great council. That settles the question, for as the Scriptures show, the Spirit and the Bride, speak as one.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: genesisone on July 18, 2013, 08:06:57 AM
Really, all we have to do is look inside a Christian church building that was constructed for that purpose in the first century.
yeshuaisiam politely ignored this comment I made way back in this thread. I'm not aware of any buildings that were constructed by Christians in the first century for the sole purpose of being a place of worship. Perhaps yesh is planning another fruitless thread on that topic.

However, I think this thread has run its course. Nothing really new has been posted for some time. We're down to the "let's just have some fun" stage  :D. Carry on, boys!
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 18, 2013, 08:07:55 PM
Dear Yeshuaisiam,

Let me help put to rest your appeal to Tertulian and the council of Elvira, et al.

Also…with respect to the image of Jonah and the fish/whale, we know it is a Christian image for two reasons. The writing on the image invokes the resurrection…a Christian linkage between Jonah and Christ, not Jewish (sign of Jonah, remember from the Gospels), and second the place it was found had several crosses cut into the walls…hardly Jewish, but definantely evidence the cross was venerated/held in high honor in the first century Church, being used as a sign of the faith.

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?
that is what Our Scripture says: Matthew 12:40.
But since you want to hack at the Tree of Life, the Church, as corrupt, you cannot pick that good fruit.
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
Supposedly the Jews didn't have images, remember?

I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.
(http://fallacyaday.com/images/45.%20Moving%20the%20Goalposts.png)(http://towhichireplied.com/images/moving_goalpostsSM.jpg)(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fxLshpUpn1k/T396a7r6jHI/AAAAAAAAAUI/ShmkbFEB-JA/s400/Moving+The+Goalposts!.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/BuAqMYE.jpg)
look under "Special pleading"
Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RC5K98C5L._SY300_.jpg)
The fruit of our Tree.

You can keep your fruit.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/21/article-1059192-02BE410200000578-893_468x315.jpg)
I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.
For those who can evaluate historical evidence, do what Jesusisiam cannot: read the literary evidence of icons and look at the iconography programs of the Churches that survive, from before 730 and after 843. Compare.

You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

Make all the jokes you want as comedy doesn't validate any points.
Nobody has shown any proof 150A.D. or before. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 18, 2013, 08:17:02 PM
Quote
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?

Yeshuaisiam, this is not worthy of you. No, I don't believe Christians believed Christ was resurrected from a great fish. I believe early Christians took the image and story of Jonah and the whale as a type that prefigured Christ. I also believe that Jesus said that the only sign that generation would receive was the sign of the prophet Jonah. So since Christ identified His own resurrection with the Jonah story, it follows that his disciples and followers would be inclined to do the same and make use of the Jonah and the whale story as a reference to resurrection in Christ our God.

Quote
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
If you are referencing the place where the bone box was found, the crosses present strongly suggest that in addition to being or having been Jewish, this was a Christian grave…very likely that of a believing Jew of that time.

Quote
I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.   Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

The proof…or at least the arguments hardly get any better. It completely demolish any reliance on Tertulian because his habit seems to be say whatever it is he feels he needs to say to win an argument. He is inconsistent with himself.

Elvira was put out of your reach one either one of two points. 1. The seemingly anti image canons were the voice of a local not a universal council, and these canons if they were indeed against images were largely ignored. Further if anti imagistic they were overruled and corrected at the 7th council. OR 2. given that this council happened during the Diocletian persecution the prohibition was not against images per se, but against painting them on the walls. This would be a protection against desecration of worship places by those persecuting them. And it is consistent with the way the Church dealt with other materials associated with corporate worship. The scriptures were hidden during the week (the Little Entrance is the survival of the fetching of them from whoever had the guardianship), The bread used was kept secret, as were the chalice and discos, and what's more, the service itself was committed to memory by the clergy lest it fall into profane hands and be made an object of public abuse or ridicule. They took "Holy things for the Holy" very serious back then.  This last fact, attested to by none less than St. Basil, probably speaks as well to the dearth of writings concerning icons and other matters of the inner life of the Church.

Quote
I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.

What writing do you have of the sacraments? Details of the Divine Liturgy from the Apostolic era Church? Or just some broad references to their existence and benefit?  Also you are arguing from a vacuum. You leap from I don't know of anything written on them from the 1st couple of centuries to an interpretation that suggests either they weren't important or weren't allowed.  You no knowledge of what once was, nor of what was lost during the 150 years of the iconoclastic controversy.  The documents you want may have had their last copies destroyed then.  We don't know one way or the other.  If you have read anything Orthodox about the history of icons you know their use did not spring full blown throughout the Church. It began locally and became universal. 

Consider we do have archeology sites of Jewish synagogues from the first couple of centuries AD, they have lots of Bible story mosaics on their walls. Is it likely that Christian when they had independent places of worship shied away from doing the same thing with both Old and New Testament stories?  Granted the craftsmanship on the little Jonah and the whale engraved bone box was pretty low…stick figure stuff, it shows however crudely  images were part of Christian piety in the earliest generations of the Church…now whether those images were venerated the way we do now, personally I would sort of doubt it initially, though I imagine certain items associated with the Lord and His Mother would have been treated with a great deal of reverence and care. 

Given that the earliest know extant icon of the sort we now recognize is found on a sarcophagus dated around 270 AD, assuming you are going to exclude St. Luke's work, and the Holy Mandylion as unreliable legends, it's not reasonable to go looking for a full blown expression or theological discussion of them (that did not become necessary until several hundreds of years later) in Apostolic and immediately post apostolic times. The use of icons develop and grew, with the primary fonts being the Church around Jerusalem and Alexandria. Remember the funerary portraits of Egypt and Palestine…well those of martyrs were attached to their sarcophagi. And it became common fairly soon to bring the relics of Martyrs into the places of worship in their ossuary boxes…which their image attached. You want first century proof of this, then I invite you to take a trip to Alexandria. Go to the Cathedral of St. Mark.  They will direct you to a little stair near the front of the Church, It goes down to their catacombs, and one of the first tombs you see, if that of St. Mark. Christians have been worshiping on that spot from Apostolic times. They build their cathedral over St. Mark's grave….and you better believe they have images of St. Mark…also, they are Coptic, and not in communion with the E.O. since the falling out at the Council of Chalcedon.  Showing honor to the relics of Christian Sts. and Martyrs has a very deep history in the Church…Apostolically deep, and it was doubtless in that era or shortly thereafter formal veneration of Sts. relics were established…and part and parcel to those relics were their containers, many of which possessed images, not only taken from the Bible, but of the person themselves.  And you can see by the time of the council of Elvira (305) and the writings of Eusebius, that by the dawn of the fourth century icons were wide spread and commonly used in conjunction with Christian worship. To reiterate a point…not of this appeared in a vacuum over night. It grew and developed.

So frankly, I don't think there is much to find icon wise from 150 back…assuming much of anything that old has survive. Other than a few special examples the nature of Christian liturgical art from the earliest centuries is limited to the Cross, Biblical references, borrowed symbolic images (good shepherd) , and rebus images (ICTHUS). It wasn't until the late third century, that anything like modern icons make a broad appearance.

So, by in large while present in small numbers here and there, they did not become an inseparable and necessary part of the teaching of the Gospel until the time of the Iconoclastic controversy.  That was when the theology and the meaning of the icons present in the Church were examined in detail. That's when rules were given to distinguish between right use, questionable use, and unquestionably prohibited use…and that examination came at the price of the blood of the faithful. From that point on images were a key resource for the affirmation of the reality of the incarnation of Christ, and have remained so ever since.

In short, you ask for impossible things, interpret the absence of these impossible things to suit your own fancy, all the while ignoring the testimony of the Church and Her Councils.  I don't really know what more is to be said. Orthodox accept the authority of the councils as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church and offering Her governance. The last Ecumenical Council spoke on, and affirmed the theology and right use of icons in the Church. The matter has been closed for over a 1000 years. Is it better to believe God or man? God has spoken in the great council. That settles the question, for as the Scriptures show, the Spirit and the Bride, speak as one.

Hi, you are right, and I didn't mean that to come off insulting at all.  It was just the point that the resurrection quote coming from a man out of a large fish would most likely reference Jonah.  If it was Christian making a reference to Christ, then its still a far cry from iconography.

Yes I have many writings of the sacraments in the church from early Christians.   In fact they are in the bible.

1) Communion
2) Confession
3) Ordination
4) Unction
5) Matrimony
6) Baptism

Those six are in the scriptures.  (Still looking for Chrismation directly, but could coincide with unction, and was also written about early on) .

So all these things existed.   Not just scripturally, but in the early writings as well.

But nothing- not one thing about icons.     The importance of iconography emphasized by the EO faith, is rather disturbing compared to the non-emphasis or existence of icons from the earliest Christians. 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: yeshuaisiam on July 18, 2013, 08:18:43 PM
Really, all we have to do is look inside a Christian church building that was constructed for that purpose in the first century.
yeshuaisiam politely ignored this comment I made way back in this thread. I'm not aware of any buildings that were constructed by Christians in the first century for the sole purpose of being a place of worship. Perhaps yesh is planning another fruitless thread on that topic.

However, I think this thread has run its course. Nothing really new has been posted for some time. We're down to the "let's just have some fun" stage  :D. Carry on, boys!

Why would I have to address quotes that we all know are simply not true?   When I get 20 replies I'm like "blah" to strange stuff.

heh, fun.....   I really think if an icon debate is fun, or rather thinking that I'm actually personally insulted by stuff like this, or bothered, you are very wrong.   There is a big X on firefox and I have a wonderful family.

I'm just a person who want to find truth.   Figuring if anybody could show me real proof, then I would need to re-analyze my position.  However, they have not, and run the usual course of what makes them feel better..... Or "fun". 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: TheTrisagion on July 18, 2013, 09:30:33 PM
Yeshuaisiam,
When you get the chance, can you respond to my post 318?  I know I rag on you a lot, but I was actually serious in that post. My thinking in that post is what I struggle with most when I try to understand where you are coming from. Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: 88Devin12 on July 19, 2013, 12:43:28 PM
One of the things to consider is that icons aren't just these images painted on a board. Icons include frescoes, mosaics, cloth, pottery and anything else that could have iconography painted/rendered on it.

Sadly I just had many hours of work erased on Wikimedia because of some guy who is Russian and "Orthodox" but thinks icons are only the things paintings on boards and that frescoes, mosaics etc... are totally different. Surprisingly it seems the guy is cradle Orthodox, and you'd think he'd know enough about Orthodoxy to know that icons includes more than just icons painted on a wooden board.

Because of this definition, we can say icons were first introduced probably in the 1st Century, and definitely by the 2nd Century.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Cyrillic on July 19, 2013, 12:50:21 PM
You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

"I will bow down toward your holy temple" -Psalm 138:2

Stop posting nonsense.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Romaios on July 19, 2013, 12:57:28 PM
1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea? 

Heaven:

(http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/images/dove-olive-branch.jpg)

Earth:

(http://felicitascasillo.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/buen-pastor_-paleo-cristiano.jpg)

Under the sea:

(http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2427/2486120/chap_assets/images/image6_2.jpg)
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: biro on July 19, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
When the Jews received the Commandments, where had they just left? Egypt. What did the Egyptian gods look like? They had animal heads - birds which lived in the sky, hippos which lived in the water, etc. It should be pretty clear to anyone with a lick or two of memory retention that the Commandment warns against returning to the worship of the pagan Egyptian gods. Don't make images of Thoth, Horus, etc.

When did Moses become furious with the people and smash the first set of tablets? When he saw them worshiping a false image, that of a pagan bull god.

Yet he kept the second set of tablets themselves, which were images of God's words. So, there must have been a difference between images that were acceptable and those that were not. Note that the Commandment doesn't say, "Don't make images" and stop right there. The fact that there is differentiation to be made, can be seen when the Lord commanded the building of the Ark of the Covenant.

But I guess some people will never see it that way. Too bad.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: mike on July 19, 2013, 10:54:41 PM
Original church???? "Original" with things made up hundreds of years after.

Why do you hate electricity so much?

even though I am fully baptized Orthodox and never was excommunicated). 

You did it by yourself.

Quote
As an EO Christian (not currently practicing),

As a nonpracticing rapist...
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Father H on July 20, 2013, 11:22:13 PM
1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea? 

Heaven:

(http://www.jesuswalk.com/christian-symbols/images/dove-olive-branch.jpg)

Earth:

(http://felicitascasillo.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/buen-pastor_-paleo-cristiano.jpg)

Under the sea:

(http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2427/2486120/chap_assets/images/image6_2.jpg)

Excellent.  However, there is only one problem, you actually answered his question.  As I have said originally, time for Jesusisiam to move the goalposts (maybe we will need to prove it pre-50AD this time). 
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Father H on July 20, 2013, 11:25:01 PM
You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

"I will bow down toward your holy temple" -Psalm 138:2

Stop posting nonsense.

Exactly Cyrillic.  If the question of if "they" includes the devout Hebrews of old, the question is answered very easily.  Yes, they did on both accounts to #s 1 and 2
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Father H on July 20, 2013, 11:28:51 PM
You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

Make all the jokes you want as comedy doesn't validate any points.
Nobody has shown any proof 150A.D. or before. 

The commandment forbids bowing down to any eidolon (idol), not any eikon (image).  So stop saying "image," because it is avoiding the issue (whether icons and idols are the same thing, which they are not, and there is a bronze serpent and engraved cherubim to prove it).   
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: john_mo on August 02, 2013, 03:43:56 AM
Excellent.  However, there is only one problem, you actually answered his question.  As I have said originally, time for Jesusisiam to move the goalposts (maybe we will need to prove it pre-50AD this time).  

 ;D This put a smile on my face.

I notice that the OP hasn't responded to their thread in some time.  Is it safe to say that he knows he's been proven wrong  conclusively and repeatedly?   

In all seriousness, OP, I hope you are praying about this rather than re-grouping.
Title: Re: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?
Post by: Jord on August 02, 2013, 01:11:03 PM
Not interested in "Legends" (St. Luke's icon that can't be proven), I am interested in the first iconography that was used & venerated by the Christians - that can be proven.

Can anybody cite when God, Yeshua(Jesus), or any of the original apostles used icons, or commanded the use of them?  (Including the Trinity icon, icons with Moses, Daniel, etc.)   

Also, I am not interested in Christian art, such as the fish which was not venerated, or wax sealers.  I'm interested in when they were implemented into the Liturgy and worship practice (veneration) of the Eastern Orthodox church.

I do not know what the answer to your question is, even if I know that the practice of praying through icons is old.

What age would justify veneration in your eyes? Is there a limit somewhere?