OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 09:56:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Icons are not Written  (Read 7666 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« on: June 08, 2010, 10:49:46 AM »

What I've been saying all along (because I read the same article he refers to years ago, too)--and I know this guy personally--he is a professor of Art History and faithful. Smiley

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/06/icons-are-not-written/
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2010, 10:50:31 AM »

Just say no to pseudo-mystical jargon. Stick with proper English...we'll be....ok! Smiley
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2010, 10:52:04 AM »

I was very delighted when I saw this article on my facebook feed this morning.  I share Fr. A.'s use of proper English and rejection of "pseudo-mystical jargon" (nice turn of phrase, Father!).

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,006



« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2010, 11:01:06 AM »

The article by Dr. Dr. John Yiannias, as well as the comments by Father Anastasios. and Schultz all make sense--natch!
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2010, 11:04:45 AM »

Thank you for posting the link.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Subdeacon Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 195



« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2010, 03:39:24 PM »

I am no doctor of anything and can claim no authority of my own but I had my own rant about this recently and I agree with him entirely.
Logged

'There is nothing upon earth holier, higher, grander, more solemn, more life-giving than the Liturgy. The church, at this particular time, becomes an earthly heaven; those who officiate represent Christ Himself, the angels, the cherubim, seraphim and apostles.' - St John of Kronstadt
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2010, 05:20:53 PM »

I am no doctor of anything and can claim no authority of my own but I had my own rant about this recently and I agree with him entirely.

FYI, regarding your second point in the rant, I have never heard someone intone "for this holy temple" instead of "for this holy house" in the litanies.  I've only heard the Church referred to as a temple outside of the Liturgical context.  In the prayers, "oikos" is translated as "house," and "naos" as "temple."  If you do a Google Images search for "ναός" you will find pictures of beautiful Churches and ancient pagan ruins.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2010, 07:34:03 PM »

I am no doctor of anything and can claim no authority of my own but I had my own rant about this recently and I agree with him entirely.

FYI, regarding your second point in the rant, I have never heard someone intone "for this holy temple" instead of "for this holy house" in the litanies.  I've only heard the Church referred to as a temple outside of the Liturgical context.  In the prayers, "oikos" is translated as "house," and "naos" as "temple."  If you do a Google Images search for "ναός" you will find pictures of beautiful Churches and ancient pagan ruins.

Fr George, the use of temple instead of house in litanies is a quirk of the Russian church, particularly ROCOR. If you have only experienced the Greek tradition, this is why you have not heard the use of temple for house. In past centuries, khram could mean both house (oikos) and temple (naos), and it seems that this has led to English translators to use temple. Personally, I feel the word should be translated as house, not temple.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 07:35:36 PM by LBK » Logged
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 951


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2010, 07:38:12 PM »

Thanks for posting this, Fr Anastasios.  That's one pseudo-pious usage I wish would die.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 07:41:14 PM by Orual » Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2010, 08:09:11 PM »

LBK, thank you for the background information!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2010, 08:36:20 PM »

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

I didn't find the article all that convincing.

I do not in any way dispute his linguistic assessment. His entire sentiment however seems to rest on a silly presumption that those who speak of an icon being 'written' intend it literally, rather than poetically. Maybe some proponents of such language have thought it compelling to propose a literal component to the expression by claiming a linguistic basis for it, but I don’t think it would shake them up too much to discover that such a linguistic basis does not properly exist.

As far as I'm aware, the English language has been the subject of poetic use. You guys heard of Shakespeare? Cool guy. He had a bit of a thing with severely dysfunctional families—dudes trying to kill their dads, and other strange things that need not be mentioned. Poetry doesn’t do "violence" to the English language; it manipulates it, purposefully, and this has always been considered a legitimate use of such language ( unless you're a mathematician or scientist--but those guys are losers anyway, so their opinions don't count). Anyone else find it ironic that the author describes the idea of icons being written as *violence* to the English language?! Excuse me while I retract my raw fist from the face of the English language. Naww, look at that, English is bleeding; does English need a bandaid? *bows for applause* Thank you, thank you. Yes, I am very funny.

Ultimately, the main *poetic* point that proponents of “icons are written” language wish to drill home is that Icons serve a sacred theological function (one which we are most accustomed to as being served via the *written* word--get it?) which distinguishes them from mere paintings with their main concern for aesthetic appeasement (be it on the sensual, corresponsive or artistic/imaginative level)—and what is so bad about that?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 08:38:23 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Orest
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,005


« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2010, 08:41:25 PM »

What I've been saying all along (because I read the same article he refers to years ago, too)--and I know this guy personally--he is a professor of Art History and faithful. Smiley

http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/06/icons-are-not-written/

He is a professor of Art History not a theologian or a linguist.  He should stick to his own area of expertise.  Firstly there is no such language as "Slavonic".  He is showing his ignorance.

There is Old Church Slavonic used for all the historical chronicles and Church Slavonic still in use today as a liturgical language.

Old Church Slavonic is taught at major universities.  It is necessary for Russian and East European historians to be able to read manuscripts and chronicles in the original language.  Old Church Slavonic is also important for scholars of Slavic linguistics.  And most seminarians in the Slavic Orthodox tradition study Church Slavonic.

The word zhivopísets, the male form of the noun for an iconographer, is from the verb to write.  Why? Because it is under the influence of the Holy Spirit that an iconographer "writes" an icon just as the Holy Spirit and the writers of the Gospel wrote the Gospels.  An unknown professor from the University of Virginia is not going to change the Slavic Orthodox tradition.  Live with it.

I am not asking the Greeks to change so why should we?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2010, 08:45:16 PM »

EA,

You are, indeed, missing the obvious.  In my experience, most of the people who insist on saying an icon is "written" are using it literally, not poetically.  Again, in my experience, people who refuse to say an icon is "painted" or even  "depicted" are advocating that an icon is the same thing as a book.  I feel this is dangerous because it reduces the Word of God (as in the 2nd Person of the Trinity) to a mere "Word" of alphabetic characters instead of the vast array of meanings the word "word" has, not only in English, but across many languages, especially Greek.

As the writer of the article pointed out, this is a primarily American phenomenon, brought about as immigrants tried to explain their tradition via translation to a largely evangelical Protestant native population that adores the Bible as the Word of God while rejecting traditional iconography.  The rich nuances of the non-English words gave way to, as Fr. A said, a pseudo-mystical literalism that does violence to the theology behind iconography.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2010, 09:05:31 PM »

Schultz,

I have not missed the point. I have dismissed its legitimacy.

To say people intend the expression literally is to suggest that they are complete idiots. That’s neither a plausible nor charitable presumption to make. Furthermore, a cursory consideration of how people who use the expression themselves actually explain their understanding of their use of it, clearly demonstrates their poetic mentality. Take for example the following brief explanation by an iconographer on their online blog (one of the first finds I came across after a quick google search):

Quote
Just as the Christian scriptures have been translated from Aramaic, Greek, and to Latin and into other world languages, an iconographer translates the Gospel into color and image. That is why we often say the icons are written rather than painted.
http://www.orthodox-icons-olympia.blogspot.com/

Clearly the iconographer is not a complete imbecile; she clearly recognises that an icon is composed of colour and image, not text. It is also clear that she intends the expression to be a symbolic expedient expressing the truth that Icons convey spiritual/theological principles and as such serve a pedagogical function. Your fear, therefore, is unfounded. The term "written" is clearly not a literal reference to the medium normally associated with "writing" i.e. text/words, it is a reference to the general purpose for which people write: to convey a particular point/message. I can't believe I even have to spell this out.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 09:06:38 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2010, 09:13:45 PM »

The word zhivopísets, the male form of the noun for an iconographer, is from the verb to write.  Why? Because it is under the influence of the Holy Spirit that an iconographer "writes" an icon just as the Holy Spirit and the writers of the Gospel wrote the Gospels.  An unknown professor from the University of Virginia is not going to change the Slavic Orthodox tradition.  Live with it.

I am not asking the Greeks to change so why should we?

The author's argument from Greek is that the same word that was used to indicate writing was also used to indicate painting in Ancient Greek, thus, the word encompassed two present English words, and should be translated appropriately (write for words, paint for pictures).  I do not know if the same argument could be used on the Old Church Slavonic.  However, it is dangerous to impugn motive on the choice of terminology older than 1,000 years (i.e. "Why? Because it is under the influence of the Holy Spirit that an iconographer "writes" an icon just as the Holy Spirit and the writers of the Gospel wrote the Gospels.").  It would be best to argue, "This is the word we choose, and this is why we choose it right now," rather than weakening your position by stating conjecture as fact (that the word for iconographer was first chosen because of ...).

Come to think of it... I think someone has, at some point, outlined this argument somewhere else on this site...

Take for example the following brief explanation by an iconographer on their online blog (one of the first finds I came across after a quick google search):

Quote
Just as the Christian scriptures have been translated from Aramaic, Greek, and to Latin and into other world languages, an iconographer translates the Gospel into color and image. That is why we often say the icons are written rather than painted.
http://www.orthodox-icons-olympia.blogspot.com/

Clearly the iconographer is not a complete imbecile; she clearly recognises that an icon is composed of colour and image, not text. It is also clear that she intends the expression to be a symbolic expedient expressing the truth that Icons convey spiritual/theological principles and as such serve a pedagogical function. Your fear, therefore, is unfounded. The term "written" is clearly not a literal reference to the medium normally associated with "writing" i.e. text/words, it is a reference to the general purpose for which people write: to convey a particular point/message. I can't believe I even have to spell this out.

Thankfully, the iconographer you've quoted does not do what many (including, most likely, those who the OP's blog quote is responding to) insist upon: that one cannot say that an icon is painted, but must say that it is written.  I think it is largely this line of thinking that leads to the counter-argument (from which this thread is born), rather than any sort of occasional or optional use of "write" instead of "paint."
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 09:16:04 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2010, 09:21:36 PM »

Previous discussions:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24767.msg382471.html#msg382471 (An extended discussion, IIRC)
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8894.msg344930.html#msg344930 (A post or two)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2010, 09:28:23 PM »

The term "writing an icon" is at best a mistranslation, at worst an affectation, as some here have stated. It is perfectly acceptable, and grammatically more correct, to say an icon is painted. The Slavic pisat' can mean either write or paint; the Greek root words graphe and graphia also have this dual meaning, in all forms of Greek language, ancient, intermediate, and modern, including the current vernacular. This duality is even preserved in English: Do we not use the term graphic when we wish to describe something in great detail, as in visual, pictorial terms?

Even the Greek work eikona can mean simply picture, illustration, image, without a religious context; or, in the correct context, means the holy religious art of the Orthodox Church. Similarly, obraz is a Slavic word which has the identical sense as the Greek eikona: that of image. Obraz can refer to any image, and it can refer to an icon. Anyone with a reasonable working knowledge of either Greek, or the various Slavic languages (or both) would be rather bemused at certain English-speakers' insistence that icons are written. It simply doesn't make sense, historically, or linguistically.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2010, 09:38:36 PM »

The term "writing an icon" is at best a mistranslation, at worst an affectation, as some here have stated. It is perfectly acceptable, and grammatically more correct, to say an icon is painted. The Slavic pisat' can mean either write or paint; the Greek root words graphe and graphia also have this dual meaning, in all forms of Greek language, ancient, intermediate, and modern, including the current vernacular. This duality is even preserved in English: Do we not use the term graphic when we wish to describe something in great detail, as in visual, pictorial terms?

Even the Greek work eikona can mean simply picture, illustration, image, without a religious context; or, in the correct context, means the holy religious art of the Orthodox Church. Similarly, obraz is a Slavic word which has the identical sense as the Greek eikona: that of image. Obraz can refer to any image, and it can refer to an icon. Anyone with a reasonable working knowledge of either Greek, or the various Slavic languages (or both) would be rather bemused at certain English-speakers' insistence that icons are written. It simply doesn't make sense, historically, or linguistically.

Agreed.  However, does that restrict us from using the word written in a poetic sense, as advocated by EA?

I still wonder what the answer is to my question from a not-so-long time ago:
Wrong.  The expression "writing an icon" is correct because iconographers are writing the Gospel just in different medium. It is the Gospel for the unlettered. The translation is deliberate, not mistranslated and is no mere affectation.

I must ask: is this a philological debate that is only relevant/pertinent in English?  IOW, are the words for "write" and "paint" the same in the other Ancient languages of the Church (Slavonic, Coptic, Greek, Arabic, Ethiopian, Georgian, etc.)?

If the debate is only pertinent in English, then we must treat the subject in a new way, just as treatment of the subject of Love in Greek (agape, filia, storgi, eros, philanthropia) versus English (love) must be different.

If, however, these other languages have words for "paint" but have not used them, then why?  My suspicion is that this is a new debate (i.e. the other languages have only had "write").

We have at times expanded our dictionaries with borrowed words, or have refused to translate words, to effectively convey the meaning of Orthodox concepts.  Is the same not permissible now?  (I'm not "for" using the word write for iconography, but I'm not against a logical discussion of the position.)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2010, 09:47:33 PM »

Quote
Thankfully, the iconographer you've quoted does not do what many (including, most likely, those who the OP's blog quote is responding to) insist upon: that one cannot say that an icon is painted, but must say that it is written.


But cannot even such insistence be justified so long as we give those who insist as such the benefit of the doubt as to their mental stability?

In my opinion, the insistence is justified when we consider a basic element of any language; namely, that words convey more than their literal definitions. They may convey extraneous or incidental ideas/sentiments according to how they are often used or applied.

As I suggested above, painting and writing can very generally/loosely be distinguished, not simply in terms of that by which they are foremost defined, viz., the medium with which they are concerned, but also their general purpose. We normally tend to associate writing with the delivery of a message; we normally tend to associate paintings with the delivery of an aesthetic experience. Those who speak of icons as being written seem to me to simply be concerned with the want to steer our idea of icons away from that which we tend to associate with "paintings". Those who *insist* on icons being written want to do that emphatically. Such emphasis may be justified depending on the importance and value of the implications that follow from the distinction being insisted upon. As far as I can discern, an intended practical implication of such insistence is to make sure that when one approaches/observes an icon, they look beyond the artistic surface and realise that they behold a sacred expression of theological/spiritual truth. And that is a good thing, is it not?

Well, I think I've made my point so I'll just leave it at that. I've been accused of missing the point, but my whole point is that it would seem to me that those criticising language of icons being written seem themselves to be missing the point, particularly by getting all caught up in etymological/linguistic issues. Like I suggested above, I think that those who have made linguistic arguments in favour of the expression of icons being written, have thought such arguments to be a nice novel support for the expression, rather than a necessary basis for it.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2010, 09:50:58 PM »

Schultz,

I have not missed the point. I have dismissed its legitimacy.

To say people intend the expression literally is to suggest that they are complete idiots. That’s neither a plausible nor charitable presumption to make. Furthermore, a cursory consideration of how people who use the expression themselves actually explain their understanding of their use of it, clearly demonstrates their poetic mentality. Take for example the following brief explanation by an iconographer on their online blog (one of the first finds I came across after a quick google search):

Quote
Just as the Christian scriptures have been translated from Aramaic, Greek, and to Latin and into other world languages, an iconographer translates the Gospel into color and image. That is why we often say the icons are written rather than painted.
http://www.orthodox-icons-olympia.blogspot.com/

Clearly the iconographer is not a complete imbecile; she clearly recognises that an icon is composed of colour and image, not text. It is also clear that she intends the expression to be a symbolic expedient expressing the truth that Icons convey spiritual/theological principles and as such serve a pedagogical function. Your fear, therefore, is unfounded. The term "written" is clearly not a literal reference to the medium normally associated with "writing" i.e. text/words, it is a reference to the general purpose for which people write: to convey a particular point/message. I can't believe I even have to spell this out.

 This is exactly how I've always understood the meaning behind "written" when used in an iconography context. 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Orest
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,005


« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2010, 09:51:10 PM »

The term "writing an icon" is at best a mistranslation, at worst an affectation, as some here have stated. It is perfectly acceptable, and grammatically more correct, to say an icon is painted. The Slavic pisat' can mean either write or paint; the Greek root words graphe and graphia also have this dual meaning, in all forms of Greek language, ancient, intermediate, and modern, including the current vernacular. This duality is even preserved in English: Do we not use the term graphic when we wish to describe something in great detail, as in visual, pictorial terms?

Even the Greek work eikona can mean simply picture, illustration, image, without a religious context; or, in the correct context, means the holy religious art of the Orthodox Church. Similarly, obraz is a Slavic word which has the identical sense as the Greek eikona: that of image. Obraz can refer to any image, and it can refer to an icon. Anyone with a reasonable working knowledge of either Greek, or the various Slavic languages (or both) would be rather bemused at certain English-speakers' insistence that icons are written. It simply doesn't make sense, historically, or linguistically.

A "Slavic" word?  There is no Slavic language but there is a Slavic family of languages.  While the word obraz in either Russian or Ukrainian has been used to refer to an icon or holy picture, the work "ikon" is for icons only.  The verb pisaty or pisats in various Slavic languages means to write.  I diasagree with your wild generations above above about "anyone" and the various Slavic languages etc. I am cradle orthodox not a convert and I grew up speaking a Slavic language in the home and a Slavic language for the celebration of the liturgy in church.  I have also studied Russian, Ukrainian and Church Slavonic all at the university level.  When taking courses dealing with iconography or the Orthodox Church taught in English at university the professors used the verb "to write" in English.  It has nothing to do with affectation.  It has to do with the Eastern Slavic Orthodox tradition and the symbolism of the Holy Spirit comparing the Gospel in pictures or colour to the written Gospels.
There are other cultural religious differences between Greek Orthodoxy and  Slavic Orthodoxy: the translation of the Greek word for "Orthodox" comes to mind: doctrine versus praise or glory.  Live with it.  There will always be these minor cultural religious differences.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2010, 09:59:35 PM »

Quote
I must ask: is this a philological debate that is only relevant/pertinent in English?  IOW, are the words for "write" and "paint" the same in the other Ancient languages of the Church (Slavonic, Coptic, Greek, Arabic, Ethiopian, Georgian, etc.)?

If the debate is only pertinent in English, then we must treat the subject in a new way, just as treatment of the subject of Love in Greek (agape, filia, storgi, eros, philanthropia) versus English (love) must be different.

If, however, these other languages have words for "paint" but have not used them, then why?  My suspicion is that this is a new debate (i.e. the other languages have only had "write").


I, and others, have already answered these questions from the Greek and Slavic language perspective. I cannot speak for the Coptic, Arabic, Ethiopian or Georgian languages. I am not particularly familiar with French, but German does have separate words for painting and writing. This may explain the English vocabulary, given its strong Germanic roots.

As for translating into English the various shades of meaning of "love": it's not too difficult.

agape: love

filia: friendship

storgi: tenderness and protection (such as maternal love for her child)

eros: physical/sexual love, the love of two uniting as one. Has also been used to describe theosis, though I much prefer theosis to "divine eros".  angel

philanthropia: compassion for one's fellow man.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2010, 10:05:09 PM »

But cannot even such insistence be justified so long as we give those who insist as such the benefit of the doubt as to their mental stability?

Yes, I suppose so.  You are being more charitable than I have been, to your credit.

As I suggested above, painting and writing can very generally/loosely be distinguished, not simply in terms of that by which they are foremost defined, viz., the medium with which they are concerned, but also their general purpose. We normally tend to associate writing with the delivery of a message; we normally tend to associate paintings with the delivery of an aesthetic experience.

Well, I'm sure that there are a number of artists who would disagree with your characterization of the association with "painting," but your statement is about general association, which is seemingly spot-on.

Those who speak of icons as being written seem to me to simply be concerned with the want to steer our idea of icons away from that which we tend to associate with "paintings". Those who *insist* on icons being written want to do that emphatically. Such emphasis may be justified depending on the importance and value of the implications that follow from the distinction being insisted upon. As far as I can discern, an intended practical implication of such insistence is to make sure that when one approaches/observes an icon, they look beyond the artistic surface and realise that they behold a sacred expression of theological/spiritual truth. And that is a good thing, is it not?

Yes, it is.

Well, I think I've made my point so I'll just leave it at that. I've been accused of missing the point, but my whole point is that it would seem to me that those criticising language of icons being written seem themselves to be missing the point, particularly by getting all caught up in etymological/linguistic issues. Like I suggested above, I think that those who have made linguistic arguments in favour of the expression of icons being written, have thought such arguments to be a nice novel support for the expression, rather than a necessary basis for it.

I wouldn't argue that you've missed the point.  I'm glad you continued to engage all of us in the discussion!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2010, 10:13:21 PM »

As for translating into English the various shades of meaning of "love": it's not too difficult.

I think there is an over-simplification involved in the process, if we want to keep our translations short, that is.

agape: love

If we start by making the most complex one simply "love," then where do we end up?  (I'm only playing the 'contrarian' in this case - I agree with the translation)

filia: friendship

While it seemingly works, I don't think the full weight of the Greek is translated well by "friendship," unless there is a more in-depth definition of friendship offered (especially since "friendship" has become increasingly watered down in recent years).  The only practical way to translate "Philanthropos" is "Friend of man/human," but it seemingly lacks layers present in the Greek, IMO.

storgi: tenderness and protection (such as maternal love for her child)

But we also use storgi for other familial/familiar bonds - so storgi is tendernes & familiarity.

eros: physical/sexual love, the love of two uniting as one. Has also been used to describe theosis, though I much prefer theosis to "divine eros".  angel

I think there is merit for both uses (viz-a-viz "divine love") - I need to find the quote from St. John Chrysostom that expresses Christ's burning love for us...

I only engage in the discussion on the points of translating "love" to indicate the possibility of layering within the terms that is not found in translation and, thus, possible when attempting to translate "paint" or "write" for iconography.  I think the discussion should transcend the simple philological (even though, again, I'm not in favor of "write"); I'm wondering if others feel the same way, or if they disagree (and why).
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 10:13:35 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2010, 10:24:49 PM »

Right, it is what oikos was translated into the slavonic: khram (temple).  You are correct of course, that the original is "this holy house" and that is the reason why the OCA for example when collating the Slavonic with the Greek has translated it as "house."  Nevertheless, many jurisdictions us "temple."

I am no doctor of anything and can claim no authority of my own but I had my own rant about this recently and I agree with him entirely.

FYI, regarding your second point in the rant, I have never heard someone intone "for this holy temple" instead of "for this holy house" in the litanies.  I've only heard the Church referred to as a temple outside of the Liturgical context.  In the prayers, "oikos" is translated as "house," and "naos" as "temple."  If you do a Google Images search for "ναός" you will find pictures of beautiful Churches and ancient pagan ruins.

Fr George, the use of temple instead of house in litanies is a quirk of the Russian church, particularly ROCOR. If you have only experienced the Greek tradition, this is why you have not heard the use of temple for house. In past centuries, khram could mean both house (oikos) and temple (naos), and it seems that this has led to English translators to use temple. Personally, I feel the word should be translated as house, not temple.

Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2010, 10:26:11 PM »

I am ok with either "written" or "depicted."  I suppose this goes back to what type of english we are using.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2010, 10:29:37 PM »

The article was ok.   I do worry about using this as trying to justify the "pictures" vs. traditional iconography.  The picture icon of Pentecost with the Theotokos in the middle does not "say" as much "graphically" as does the traditionally "written" icon with Christ enthroned invisibly in the midst of the Apostles as the Head of the college.  
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 10:30:11 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2010, 10:32:42 PM »

Quote
I only engage in the discussion on the points of translating "love" to indicate the possibility of layering within the terms that is not found in translation and, thus, possible when attempting to translate "paint" or "write" for iconography.  I think the discussion should transcend the simple philological (even though, again, I'm not in favor of "write"); I'm wondering if others feel the same way, or if they disagree (and why).

Fr George, please look at my comments on the English word graphic.  Smiley
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2010, 10:33:05 PM »

Just to clarify, I don't care what terminology is used, but I do care about the content of icons.  There are some from bishop on down that cherish the theologically void depictions that barely cut it as icons, and are impoverished of what the fully traditional icons "says."
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2010, 10:35:08 PM »

Quote
I only engage in the discussion on the points of translating "love" to indicate the possibility of layering within the terms that is not found in translation and, thus, possible when attempting to translate "paint" or "write" for iconography.  I think the discussion should transcend the simple philological (even though, again, I'm not in favor of "write"); I'm wondering if others feel the same way, or if they disagree (and why).

Fr George, please look at my comments on the English word graphic.  Smiley

Good point to be pondered
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2010, 10:43:42 PM »

The article was ok.   I do worry about using this as trying to justify the "pictures" vs. traditional iconography.  The picture icon of Pentecost with the Theotokos in the middle does not "say" as much "graphically" as does the traditionally "written" icon with Christ enthroned invisibly in the midst of the Apostles as the Head of the college.  

Why not? Honest question, no ulterior motive (I don't like Western-style pictures in churches, btw; just wondering what is wrong with having the Theotokos at Pentecost; is that equivalent to St. Paul depicted at the Last Supper perhaps? A theological statement that can be backed up with traditional Byzantine iconography?)

And why is an article by a professor of Byzantine art who is a faithful Orthodox Christian only "ok" and not definitive? (again, no ulterior motive; I am trying to understand what the alternative considerations are; I don't see how avoiding pseudo-mystical jargon necessitates an approval of Western paintings?).

Fr A.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2010, 10:45:09 PM »

Just to clarify, I don't care what terminology is used, but I do care about the content of icons.  There are some from bishop on down that cherish the theologically void depictions that barely cut it as icons, and are impoverished of what the fully traditional icons "says."

OK, I think you clarified what my questions were. Content vs. expression/language. But please do comment if you are so inclined.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2010, 10:50:50 PM »

The earliest Pentecost icons we have do not depict her (at least not at the center).  That is because Christ is enthroned invisibly in the center.  This reflects our entire ecclesiology (that even Peter and Paul as protos still are the eldest of brothers, not the head of the Church)

As for "ok," I find that I cannot say this to my wife when she asks how she is dressed for a brilliant occasion.  I was hoping I could say it here.  They are all valid points.  My only worry is that anything that is painted can be thereafter construed as an icon.   Really, there is nothing more.  Not taking away from his writing, most of which I agree with, but still with concern for where such as "push" for distinction would bring us.

The article was ok.   I do worry about using this as trying to justify the "pictures" vs. traditional iconography.  The picture icon of Pentecost with the Theotokos in the middle does not "say" as much "graphically" as does the traditionally "written" icon with Christ enthroned invisibly in the midst of the Apostles as the Head of the college.  

Why not? Honest question, no ulterior motive (I don't like Western-style pictures in churches, btw; just wondering what is wrong with having the Theotokos at Pentecost; is that equivalent to St. Paul depicted at the Last Supper perhaps? A theological statement that can be backed up with traditional Byzantine iconography?)

And why is an article by a professor of Byzantine art who is a faithful Orthodox Christian only "ok" and not definitive? (again, no ulterior motive; I am trying to understand what the alternative considerations are; I don't see how avoiding pseudo-mystical jargon necessitates an approval of Western paintings?).

Fr A.
Logged
chatelaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)
Posts: 30


« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2010, 07:58:07 AM »

Generally, in Western art, subject matter is not considered important.  A painting can be of a slab of beef or of Jesus, for example; it makes no difference.  What is considered important is the use of color, line, form, materials used and the composition.

In the East, however, subject matter is VERY important.  Icons:  An Icon ALWAYS refers back to a WRITTEN story; the Old and/or New Testaments.

Hence, Icons are considered 'written'.

Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2010, 09:40:05 AM »

Quote
I only engage in the discussion on the points of translating "love" to indicate the possibility of layering within the terms that is not found in translation and, thus, possible when attempting to translate "paint" or "write" for iconography.  I think the discussion should transcend the simple philological (even though, again, I'm not in favor of "write"); I'm wondering if others feel the same way, or if they disagree (and why).
Fr George, please look at my comments on the English word graphicSmiley

Noted.  I agree with your position; I'd like to also hear developed contrary positions from others, methinks.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 09:40:18 AM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2010, 09:42:56 AM »

Fr. Anthony Salzman of St. Philothea Greek Orthodox Church in Athens, Georgia (US) is an established iconographer who studied in Greece for 6 years. He explained to me that icons are written because they are a visual form of the Gospel, and not just some fancy painting of a random scene. Their intent is to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, whether it be through the depiction of a saint or a scene from scripture.

It is for this reason we say icons are "written," and not "painted."
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2010, 09:54:25 AM »

Fr. Anthony Salzman of St. Philothea Greek Orthodox Church in Athens, Georgia (US) is an established iconographer who studied in Greece for 6 years. He explained to me that icons are written because they are a visual form of the Gospel, and not just some fancy painting of a random scene. Their intent is to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, whether it be through the depiction of a saint or a scene from scripture.

It is for this reason we say icons are "written," and not "painted."

But the Gospel was originally spoken.  We don't say that spoken words, especially those that come about through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the fly (as the Apostles most assuredly orginally spread the Word), are "written;" we say that they are "spoken."

In the same light, pictures are not "written;" they are "drawn" or "painted".  An icon is the Gospel in picture form.

Again, let me point out that, contrary to what it may seem, I am not against using the word "written" in relation to iconography in a poetic form.  Many do, as the iconographer in the link EA provided, with the caveat that icons are also "painted."  However, as noted in my second post in this thread (in a reply to EA), it has been my experience that those who insist on saying that icons must be "written" tend to look on those who say one can refer to an icon as "painted" as guilty of some sort of heretical understanding of iconography.  I have been told by well meaning people that I "don't know what I'm talking about" and that "I'm just a crypto-Roman Catholic playing at Orthodoxy" because I refer to an icon being "painted".  How is that good theology?

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
chatelaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)
Posts: 30


« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2010, 10:33:42 AM »

By the time Icons came into existence, both the Old and New Testaments were written down.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2010, 10:37:19 AM »

By the time Icons came into existence, both the Old and New Testaments were written down.

And you're missing the point.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
chatelaa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)
Posts: 30


« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2010, 10:57:55 AM »

By the time Icons came into existence, both the Old and New Testaments were written down.

And you're missing the point.


Read my earlier post; you are the one missing the point
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2010, 11:02:44 AM »

By the time Icons came into existence, both the Old and New Testaments were written down.

And you're missing the point.


Read my earlier post; you are the one missing the point

I did.  

I was unaware that the icon of, say, The Protection of the Mother of God, refers to a WRITTEN "story", but, rather, to an historical event where God's glory was made manifest.

The icons of the saints are not "written stories," but, visual depictions of the glory of God made manifest through His creation.  

And with that, I am done arguing this issue in this thread.  I've made my point and cannot make it any clearer.  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 11:03:14 AM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2010, 12:24:52 PM »

Generally, in Western art, subject matter is not considered important.  A painting can be of a slab of beef or of Jesus, for example; it makes no difference.  What is considered important is the use of color, line, form, materials used and the composition.

In terms of western religious art, I think this is complete nonsense. I am quite sure that the subject matter of the majestus in the reredos for the high altar at the National Cathedral is not the least bit indifferent as to whether it depicts a slab of beef (which it does not) or Jesus (which it does).
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2010, 01:26:22 PM »

Fr. Anthony Salzman of St. Philothea Greek Orthodox Church in Athens, Georgia (US) is an established iconographer who studied in Greece for 6 years. He explained to me that icons are written because they are a visual form of the Gospel, and not just some fancy painting of a random scene. Their intent is to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, whether it be through the depiction of a saint or a scene from scripture.

It is for this reason we say icons are "written," and not "painted."

We could use the same logic to say that children's book illustrations are "written."

The point is, to say that icons are "written" is a "gee-whiz" gimmick and affectation which has no serious basis in Tradition.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2010, 07:57:35 PM »

By the time Icons came into existence, both the Old and New Testaments were written down.

Wrong. The first icons were the large number of cherubim in the first tabernacle, and, later, in the Temple at Jerusalem. Are you suggesting Exodus (especially chs 25 and 26) was written before Moses built the tabernacle?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2011, 04:36:15 PM »

I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this thread since I see this "written, not painted" schtick popping up recently.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2011, 04:51:41 PM »

I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this thread since I see this "written, not painted" schtick popping up recently.

Almost as bad as the "God's actions in the Old Testament were just anthropomorphism" schtick.

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2011, 04:55:23 PM »

I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this thread since I see this "written, not painted" schtick popping up recently.

Almost as bad as the "God's actions in the Old Testament were just anthropomorphism" schtick.



The Hebrews simply painted God out to be something He wasn't.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2011, 04:57:17 PM »

And the temple stuff is odd as well.

The people of God, the Church is the Temple of God. Not buildings made by hands.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 04:58:26 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2011, 04:57:59 PM »

I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this thread since I see this "written, not painted" schtick popping up recently.

Almost as bad as the "God's actions in the Old Testament were just anthropomorphism" schtick.



The Hebrews simply painted God out to be something He wasn't.
Living?

But seriously. Christian anthropology denies the possibility of God being anthropomorphic.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 04:59:23 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2011, 05:02:17 PM »

And the temple stuff is odd as well.

The people of God, the Church is the Temple of God. Not buildings made by hands.
Moscow has no hands, because Moscow is ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally Moscow.

The early peoples of Rus had a primitive conception of Moscow, thus they assigned Moscow human traits. But Moscow merely appears to have hands to those who live outside of the true Moscow; in the inner life of Moscow, Moscow is supra-chirotic and is beyond all hands.

Moscow's buildings can therefore be called temples.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:04:24 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2011, 05:04:23 PM »

I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this thread since I see this "written, not painted" schtick popping up recently.

Almost as bad as the "God's actions in the Old Testament were just anthropomorphism" schtick.



The Hebrews simply painted God out to be something He wasn't.
Living?

But seriously. Christian anthropology denies the possibility of God being anthropomorphic.

They painted by numbers, I mean come on, how do you take this seriously?

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0422.htm#28

If only they had been writing . . .
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:05:11 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2011, 05:07:33 PM »

I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this thread since I see this "written, not painted" schtick popping up recently.

Almost as bad as the "God's actions in the Old Testament were just anthropomorphism" schtick.



The Hebrews simply painted God out to be something He wasn't.
Living?

But seriously. Christian anthropology denies the possibility of God being anthropomorphic.

They painted by numbers, I mean come on, how do you take this seriously?

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0422.htm#28

If only they had been writing . . .

Are you saying that Hebrew artists were the genesis of connect-the-dots?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:07:48 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2011, 05:21:37 PM »

I thought it worthwhile to resurrect this thread since I see this "written, not painted" schtick popping up recently.

Almost as bad as the "God's actions in the Old Testament were just anthropomorphism" schtick.



The Hebrews simply painted God out to be something He wasn't.
Living?

But seriously. Christian anthropology denies the possibility of God being anthropomorphic.

They painted by numbers, I mean come on, how do you take this seriously?

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0422.htm#28

If only they had been writing . . .

Are you saying that Hebrew artists were the genesis of connect-the-dots?

Duetoirony, the fifth Book of the Law, wasn't even written down. That is if you believe the unChristian tongue of the Hebrews.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:23:04 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,699



WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2011, 06:38:08 PM »

I am glad I saw this, because I thought 'written' was the correct term. Now that I know it's not, I'll quit saying that.  Smiley
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2011, 07:26:23 PM »

I am glad I saw this, because I thought 'written' was the correct term. Now that I know it's not, I'll quit saying that.  Smiley

Biro, the most inscrutable of us all!

It ain't "wrong". I doubt you were using it with the pretension, which I believe is the point here.

Are you even capable of pretense? Call it whatever you like.

Some folks just like to make a point using an odd sounding word in the English language because, well I won't put it any better than it has been put above.





Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
FrMoses
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern California and Hawaii
Posts: 2


« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2011, 12:20:43 AM »

Fr. Anthony Salzman of St. Philothea Greek Orthodox Church in Athens, Georgia (US) is an established iconographer who studied in Greece for 6 years. He explained to me that icons are written because they are a visual form of the Gospel, and not just some fancy painting of a random scene. Their intent is to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, whether it be through the depiction of a saint or a scene from scripture.

It is for this reason we say icons are "written," and not "painted."

This is how I see things, as well. It may be that the expression "icons are written" is silly when it comes to the original Greek and resulting English (mis?)translation, but over time, it seems that expression has come to signify much more than the creation of icons: it symbolizes the nature of icons as works entirely different from secular works of art.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #56 on: December 20, 2011, 04:03:44 AM »

The Father Thomas Hopko fan club strikes again.

You guys have won me over on so many subjects. I just find it amusing how I so often recognise Father Tom's words in your typing.

I still don't think God has a back, though.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #57 on: December 20, 2011, 04:09:26 AM »

I'm with you, akimori. The more folks try to justify icon "writing". the more I cringe. Or laugh, when it gets too silly.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2011, 04:30:28 AM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.
Yes he does:




Let's start a new thread: "Did the infant/youth Jesus have toys?"

*cue 50,000 stoic patristic quotes about the evils of childhood diversion, plus a link to a talk given by Fr. Seraphim of Platina*

Here's one:

"For hear, O Christian! Christ, being the eternal Logos, contained within himself the changeless knowledge of the potential edification of playing with all the toys that have, will be, or could have been. However, for the sake of the dispensation, he may have permitted his flesh to undergo the enjoyment of toys in order to fulfill the prophecy of Playmobilus the Younger, which reads:

'He shall consume many legos,
yet they shall pass unobstructed therethrough;
And by his own arm, let the logs of lincoln be builded'

Thus the Logos did not preserve the properties of giggling, laughing, falling, or general merry-making undiminished; but being that self-same Word, he was so totally over kids stuff.
"

-Elder Andrei Vomilogrinch of Winter Warlock Monastery in Kiev
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 04:54:38 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2011, 10:29:11 AM »

I'm more interested in how Pasadi answers this.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2011, 12:39:30 AM »


This is how I see things, as well. It may be that the expression "icons are written" is silly when it comes to the original Greek and resulting English (mis?)translation, but over time, it seems that expression has come to signify much more than the creation of icons: it symbolizes the nature of icons as works entirely different from secular works of art.

Come to signify by whom? A small group of people who have agreed amongst themselves to hijack the English language and claim that their created jargon is necessary to differentiate an icon from a secular painting? By reverse application, we would have to use a word other than written to communicate that the Gospels are different than the works of Shakespeare. Perhaps we should say that the Gospels are "etched"? After all, they were etched into papyrus scrolls originally...or perhaps they are "translated": the Divine Logos spake a word unto our Fathers the Apostles, so they "translated" that Logos into the Logoi...or perhaps they were "breathed"? After all, they were etched under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

The point of my hyperbole: use the proper English word. Explain the concept using the proper English word. Don't hijack English in order to manufacture a secret, mystical-sounding jargon that is nonsensical to the very people we are trying to evangelize.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #61 on: December 22, 2011, 12:47:18 AM »

Quote
Come to signify by whom? A small group of people who have agreed amongst themselves to hijack the English language and claim that their created jargon is necessary to differentiate an icon from a secular painting? By reverse application, we would have to use a word other than written to communicate that the Gospels are different than the works of Shakespeare. Perhaps we should say that the Gospels are "etched"? After all, they were etched into papyrus scrolls originally...or perhaps they are "translated": the Divine Logos spake a word unto our Fathers the Apostles, so they "translated" that Logos into the Logoi...or perhaps they were "breathed"? After all, they were etched under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

The point of my hyperbole: use the proper English word. Explain the concept using the proper English word. Don't hijack English in order to manufacture a secret, mystical-sounding jargon that is nonsensical to the very people we are trying to evangelize.

Couldn't have put it better myself. An excellent analysis!
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #62 on: December 22, 2011, 01:41:29 AM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.
Yes he does:


Dude, you know I'm talking the pre-incarnate God but well-played.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #63 on: December 22, 2011, 02:23:11 AM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.
Yes he does:




Let's start a new thread: "Did the infant/youth Jesus have toys?"

*cue 50,000 stoic patristic quotes about the evils of childhood diversion, plus a link to a talk given by Fr. Seraphim of Platina*

Here's one:

"For hear, O Christian! Christ, being the eternal Logos, contained within himself the changeless knowledge of the potential edification of playing with all the toys that have, will be, or could have been. However, for the sake of the dispensation, he may have permitted his flesh to undergo the enjoyment of toys in order to fulfill the prophecy of Playmobilus the Younger, which reads:

'He shall consume many legos,
yet they shall pass unobstructed therethrough;
And by his own arm, let the logs of lincoln be builded'

Thus the Logos did not preserve the properties of giggling, laughing, falling, or general merry-making undiminished; but being that self-same Word, he was so totally over kids stuff.
"

-Elder Andrei Vomilogrinch of Winter Warlock Monastery in Kiev

Blasphemy! God is in the perfect shape, which we all know is a sphere.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #64 on: December 22, 2011, 08:06:07 AM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.

Exodus 33:23 :"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 08:08:25 AM by Keble » Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #65 on: December 22, 2011, 01:47:17 PM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.
Yes he does:




Let's start a new thread: "Did the infant/youth Jesus have toys?"

*cue 50,000 stoic patristic quotes about the evils of childhood diversion, plus a link to a talk given by Fr. Seraphim of Platina*

Here's one:

"For hear, O Christian! Christ, being the eternal Logos, contained within himself the changeless knowledge of the potential edification of playing with all the toys that have, will be, or could have been. However, for the sake of the dispensation, he may have permitted his flesh to undergo the enjoyment of toys in order to fulfill the prophecy of Playmobilus the Younger, which reads:

'He shall consume many legos,
yet they shall pass unobstructed therethrough;
And by his own arm, let the logs of lincoln be builded'

Thus the Logos did not preserve the properties of giggling, laughing, falling, or general merry-making undiminished; but being that self-same Word, he was so totally over kids stuff.
"

-Elder Andrei Vomilogrinch of Winter Warlock Monastery in Kiev

Blasphemy! God is in the perfect shape, which we all know is a sphere.

There is so much about this exchange that is right, I don't know where to start.

Thank you guys.

EDIT: Unfortunately, the avatars and .sigs are not preserved.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 01:49:51 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #66 on: December 22, 2011, 02:48:23 PM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.

Exodus 33:23 :"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

Keble, how do you understand this verse?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #67 on: December 22, 2011, 02:55:52 PM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.

Exodus 33:23 :"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

Keble, how do you understand this verse?

God was intentionally unclear with Moses, who did not understand sophisticated philosophy. He was relying on the fact that people familiar with Plotinus would correctly decipher in the future that he meant meant his apophatic not-face, not-hand and not-back. Tongue That or perhaps God has features that are like hands, like a face and like a back (though I suppose that I can agree that we cannot describe them being as such, and so have to be careful to apophatically state that they are not hands but also not not hands, etc.).
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 03:02:21 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #68 on: December 22, 2011, 03:18:34 PM »

Is that from the Gospel according to Origen, righteous confounder of the Hebrews?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #69 on: December 22, 2011, 03:39:00 PM »

Is that from the Gospel according to Origen, righteous confounder of the Hebrews?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, but not in such a way that implies that God is composed of parts, that God is not simple, or that God gives rise to multiplicity.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 03:39:44 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #70 on: December 22, 2011, 04:22:07 PM »

This is getting kinda lame.

Yes, the Old Testament is not just some metaphor for which we can conveniently substitute Greek philosophy in its place. I don't think that means the Fathers were all going Plotinus on us when they insisted the pre-incarnate God does not have a back or hands.

Your parody of schtick, it seems to me, is in danger of becoming schtick itself.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #71 on: December 22, 2011, 04:32:04 PM »

This is getting kinda lame.

Yes, the Old Testament is not just some metaphor for which we can conveniently substitute Greek philosophy in its place. I don't think that means the Fathers were all going Plotinus on us when they insisted the pre-incarnate God does not have a back or hands.

Your parody of schtick, it seems to me, is in danger of becoming schtick itself.

Well, how do you understand God having a back and hands and a face? Surely God has these things in some fashion, or else he would not have spoken to Moses in such a manner.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #72 on: December 22, 2011, 04:43:36 PM »

I think what you said below is mostly on point.

I am not irked by your taking a particular view of the matter, it is more the flippant treatment of the sincere efforts of the Fathers to understand the Scriptures with which I take issue. While products of their time and place and quite capable of being wrong, they were far from stupid men.

I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

I still don't think God has a back, though.

Exodus 33:23 :"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

Keble, how do you understand this verse?

God was intentionally unclear with Moses, who did not understand sophisticated philosophy. He was relying on the fact that people familiar with Plotinus would correctly decipher in the future that he meant meant his apophatic not-face, not-hand and not-back. Tongue That or perhaps God has features that are like hands, like a face and like a back (though I suppose that I can agree that we cannot describe them being as such, and so have to be careful to apophatically state that they are not hands but also not not hands, etc.).
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #73 on: December 22, 2011, 05:50:45 PM »

I think what you said below is mostly on point.

I am not irked by your taking a particular view of the matter, it is more the flippant treatment of the sincere efforts of the Fathers to understand the Scriptures with which I take issue. While products of their time and place and quite capable of being wrong, they were far from stupid men.

I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

I still don't think God has a back, though.

Exodus 33:23 :"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

Keble, how do you understand this verse?

God was intentionally unclear with Moses, who did not understand sophisticated philosophy. He was relying on the fact that people familiar with Plotinus would correctly decipher in the future that he meant meant his apophatic not-face, not-hand and not-back. Tongue That or perhaps God has features that are like hands, like a face and like a back (though I suppose that I can agree that we cannot describe them being as such, and so have to be careful to apophatically state that they are not hands but also not not hands, etc.).

Point taken.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #74 on: December 22, 2011, 06:05:34 PM »

I am not irked by your taking a particular view of the matter, it is more the flippant treatment of the sincere efforts of the Fathers to understand the Scriptures with which I take issue. While products of their time and place and quite capable of being wrong, they were far from stupid men.

Thank you for posting that.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #75 on: December 22, 2011, 06:52:27 PM »

Sorry for being grumpy and probably de-railing the thread. You know I love you guys.

On top of that, you're quite probably more correct in these matters than I am.

Christ is born!

Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #76 on: December 22, 2011, 10:06:46 PM »

I think what you said below is mostly on point.

I am not irked by your taking a particular view of the matter, it is more the flippant treatment of the sincere efforts of the Fathers to understand the Scriptures with which I take issue. While products of their time and place and quite capable of being wrong, they were far from stupid men.

I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

I'm definitely with you on this one.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #77 on: December 22, 2011, 10:15:00 PM »

Quote
I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

An analogy to this from the New Testament is Christ asking Martha and Mary where their brother Lazarus was buried. Being God, it is beyond question that He knew.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 10:15:25 PM by LBK » Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #78 on: December 22, 2011, 10:45:54 PM »

Quote
I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

An analogy to this from the New Testament is Christ asking Martha and Mary where their brother Lazarus was buried. Being God, it is beyond question that He knew.

*eye roll*

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #79 on: December 22, 2011, 11:09:03 PM »

This is getting kinda lame.

Yes, the Old Testament is not just some metaphor for which we can conveniently substitute Greek philosophy in its place. I don't think that means the Fathers were all going Plotinus on us when they insisted the pre-incarnate God does not have a back or hands.

Your parody of schtick, it seems to me, is in danger of becoming schtick itself.

Well, how do you understand God having a back and hands and a face? Surely God has these things in some fashion, or else he would not have spoken to Moses in such a manner.

I have no problem with the Fathers' interpretation of this. If the Church used Greek philosophy to clarify this, so be it. We can smirk at it as we like, but some of us chose to join this Church knowing what we were getting into, so it seems a bit pointless to me to mock it now.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #80 on: December 23, 2011, 01:24:43 AM »

Quote
I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

An analogy to this from the New Testament is Christ asking Martha and Mary where their brother Lazarus was buried. Being God, it is beyond question that He knew.

*eye roll*


I'm just dying to open up that Christological can of worms.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #81 on: December 23, 2011, 01:40:08 AM »

Quote
I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

An analogy to this from the New Testament is Christ asking Martha and Mary where their brother Lazarus was buried. Being God, it is beyond question that He knew.
Being God, Christ could not die, so the Nestorians are right.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #82 on: December 23, 2011, 01:44:30 AM »

Quote
I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

An analogy to this from the New Testament is Christ asking Martha and Mary where their brother Lazarus was buried. Being God, it is beyond question that He knew.
Being God, Christ could not die, so the Nestorians are right.

Have a look at Vespers and Matins for the Raising of Lazarus.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #83 on: December 23, 2011, 02:05:15 AM »

Have a look at Vespers and Matins for the Raising of Lazarus.

It'a not a contradiction; it's a MYSTERY!!!
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #84 on: December 23, 2011, 04:27:28 AM »

Quote
I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

An analogy to this from the New Testament is Christ asking Martha and Mary where their brother Lazarus was buried. Being God, it is beyond question that He knew.
Being God, Christ could not die, so the Nestorians are right.

Have a look at Vespers and Matins for the Raising of Lazarus.
Have a look at the Holy Scriptures.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #85 on: December 23, 2011, 07:18:43 AM »

Quote
I do not believe the Lord did not know exactly where Adam was when he was "looking" for him in paradise. Perhaps he was indeed looking for Adam, in some sense, but certainly not the ordinary sense.

An analogy to this from the New Testament is Christ asking Martha and Mary where their brother Lazarus was buried. Being God, it is beyond question that He knew.
Being God, Christ could not die, so the Nestorians are right.

Have a look at Vespers and Matins for the Raising of Lazarus.
Have a look at the Holy Scriptures.

Come on, really?
Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #86 on: December 23, 2011, 03:26:47 PM »

Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,636



« Reply #87 on: December 23, 2011, 03:32:35 PM »

It should be added to the service as a "another apolytikion"
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #88 on: December 23, 2011, 03:38:07 PM »

There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."

Post of the month?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #89 on: December 23, 2011, 03:48:02 PM »

Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."

Okay, but who are you actually arguing with then? Nobody is denying that Christ was ignorant in his human nature.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,625


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #90 on: December 23, 2011, 05:20:57 PM »

Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."

From the Matins of the Raising of Lazarus:

O Fountain of wisdom and foreknowledge, You asked the companions of Martha when You came to Bethany: “Where have you laid my friend Lazarus?” Shedding for him tears of tender love, You called to him in Your compassion and raised him by Your voice, though he was four days dead; for You are Giver of Life and Lord.

O Christ, You became man, taking human nature from the Virgin, and as man You asked where Lazarus was buried, although as God You were not ignorant of this.

Displaying Your two energies, O Saviour, You made manifest Your two natures: for You are both God and man.

Though You are the Abyss of knowledge, You asked where they have laid the body of Lazarus. For it was Your purpose, O Giver of Life, to raise him from the dead.

The sisters of Lazarus stood beside Christ and, lamenting with bitter tears, they said to Him: “O Lord, Lazarus is dead.” And though as God He knew the place of burial, yet He asked them, “Where have you laid him?” Coming to the tomb, He called Lazarus that was four days dead; and he arose and worshipped the Lord who had raised him.

Foreknowing all things as Creator, You warned the disciples at Bethany, saying: “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep today.” And, though You were not ignorant, You asked: “Where have you laid him?” Weeping as a man, You prayed to the Father; You called Your friend Lazarus from hell, O Lord, and raised him when he had been four days dead. Therefore we cry to You: Accept, O Christ our God, the praise we dare to offer, and count us all worthy of Your glory.

You prayed to the Father, not because You are in need of any help, but to fulfil the mystery of Your Incarnation; and so, almighty Lord, You raised up a corpse that was four days dead.

You who are by nature uncircumscribed was circumscribed in the flesh; coming to Bethany, O Master, as man You weep over Lazarus, and by Your power as God You raise him on the fourth day from the dead.

As mortal man You asked where Lazarus was buried; as Maker, You raised him from the dead by Your royal command. Hell was afraid of him when he cried out to You: “Praise the Lord and exalt Him above all to all ages.

As a mortal, You search for Lazarus; as God, You raise him by Your word, though he was four days dead. Therefore we sing Your praises to all ages.

O Christ, who is the Resurrection and the Life of man, standing by the tomb of Lazarus You have confirmed our faith in Your two natures, O forbearing Lord, proving that You were born from the pure Virgin as both God and man. For as man You asked, “Where is he buried?” and as God by Your life-giving command You raised him from the dead on the fourth day.

You have granted to Your disciples, O Christ, tokens of Your divinity, but You have humbled Yourself among the crowds, wishing to conceal it from them. Foreknowing all things as God, You have foretold to the apostles the death of Lazarus; yet at Bethany, when in the presence of the people, you have as man asked where Your friend was buried, being ignorant of this. But then You raised him four days after he was dead, and so he rendered manifest Your power as God. O almighty Lord, glory to You.



Care to comment, NicholasMyra?
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #91 on: December 23, 2011, 09:06:21 PM »

*YAWN*

The naivete of fundamentalism knows not the shores of Protestantism.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #92 on: December 23, 2011, 11:13:14 PM »

*YAWN*

The naivete of fundamentalism knows not the shores of Protestantism.

Where is the "fundamentalism" here?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 11:13:26 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #93 on: December 24, 2011, 12:41:43 AM »

Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."

Okay, but who are you actually arguing with then? Nobody is denying that Christ was ignorant in his human nature.

How can you be ignorant in a nature?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #94 on: December 24, 2011, 12:50:30 AM »

In honor of Nick:

"Thy most divine Split-Personality
Didst makes the cockles of Nestorius' heart warm.
For to say that Thou didst have a divine mind only is a heresy,
Yet here we chant unto Thee: Apollinarianism!"
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 12:51:33 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #95 on: December 24, 2011, 01:01:26 AM »

We should make a cynical hymnology corpus.

the Diogenelogion.

"Thou didst inhibit thy human tear ducts, O Word,
For thou didst not seek to teach men unmanliness,
But permitting thy diminished flesh to cry a little,
You tricked all who surrounded you into thinking you were a man"

You really have to draw out "thinking" when you sing it.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #96 on: December 24, 2011, 02:20:50 AM »

"When Thou didst proclaim to Thy disciples, O Christ our God,
That Thou didst not know the day or hour of Thy return;
Thou didst skew their apperception with Thy all-resplendent brain,
Swallowing up human nature in perfect divinity!"
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #97 on: December 24, 2011, 03:33:24 AM »

*YAWN*

The naivete of fundamentalism knows not the shores of Protestantism.

Where is the "fundamentalism" here?

It goes to method. No really wants to have that discussion around here.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #98 on: December 24, 2011, 12:28:44 PM »

We should make a cynical hymnology corpus.

the Diogenelogion.

"Thou didst inhibit thy human tear ducts, O Word,
For thou didst not seek to teach men unmanliness,
But permitting thy diminished flesh to cry a little,
You tricked all who surrounded you into thinking you were a man"

You really have to draw out "thinking" when you sing it.

St. Cyril would be proud!  Wink
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #99 on: December 26, 2011, 05:56:00 PM »

Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."

Okay, but who are you actually arguing with then? Nobody is denying that Christ was ignorant in his human nature.

How can you be ignorant in a nature?

The same way you can die in a nature, suffer in a nature, etc.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #100 on: December 26, 2011, 06:06:40 PM »

Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."

Okay, but who are you actually arguing with then? Nobody is denying that Christ was ignorant in his human nature.

How can you be ignorant in a nature?

The same way you can die in a nature, suffer in a nature, etc.
What way is that?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 06:06:53 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #101 on: December 26, 2011, 06:15:01 PM »

Our hymn-writers looked at them too and knew what they meant.
There aren't any Orthodox hymns that go,

"You LARPed as a human, O Christ God,
Feigning ignorance for didactic purposes.
You asked Martha a rhetorical question,
Thus instructing her in perfect faith."

Okay, but who are you actually arguing with then? Nobody is denying that Christ was ignorant in his human nature.

How can you be ignorant in a nature?

The same way you can die in a nature, suffer in a nature, etc.
What way is that?


One person, 100% human, 100% God... how does that work?

Really, LBK posted the most substantial contribution to this thread. Your "hymns" are mocking a position which can't be found in the teaching of the Church.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #102 on: December 26, 2011, 06:28:58 PM »

*YAWN*

The naivete of fundamentalism knows not the shores of Protestantism.

Where is the "fundamentalism" here?

It goes to method. No really wants to have that discussion around here.

I don't know what you mean- the "fundy" word has been used by so many different people for so many different reasons that it's become a meaningless rhetorical gimmick like "gnostic" or "Western". Someone maintaining that Moses literally saw God's back could also be called a "fundamentalist" by certain definitions. I'm not actually sure what's being mocked here- what the Church actually teaches doesn't seem to be an object of much interest. The ironic hymns are fun but really, what is your actual point?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #103 on: December 26, 2011, 06:33:33 PM »

Your "hymns" are mocking a position which can't be found in the teaching of the Church.
Well, I certainly hope the positions I'm mocking cannot be found in the teaching of the Church.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #104 on: December 26, 2011, 07:00:27 PM »

*YAWN*

The naivete of fundamentalism knows not the shores of Protestantism.

Where is the "fundamentalism" here?

It goes to method. No really wants to have that discussion around here.

I don't know what you mean- the "fundy" word has been used by so many different people for so many different reasons that it's become a meaningless rhetorical gimmick like "gnostic" or "Western". Someone maintaining that Moses literally saw God's back could also be called a "fundamentalist" by certain definitions. I'm not actually sure what's being mocked here- what the Church actually teaches doesn't seem to be an object of much interest. The ironic hymns are fun but really, what is your actual point?

I can see how we can be confused given our bromance power couple status, but I don't think I've ever written a hymn, not even an ironic one.

Are you responding to me?

The declarative sentences of mine you quoted seem pretty clear.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #105 on: December 26, 2011, 09:24:13 PM »

I still don't think God has a back, though.

Exodus 33:23 :"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

Keble, how do you understand this verse?

Well, I don't understand it. I mean, I understand the part about not being able to see God's face: that is explained all over scripture. But I do not see how to assign meanings to the rest of the passage. I also note that, unlike most everything else in Exodus, the passage is not acted out. You would expect there to be another passage further along that runs something like, "So Moses stood on the rock as the LORD directed; and the LORD God put him in a cleft and covered him with his hand. Then the glory of the LORD passed by, and the LORD took away his hand; and Moses saw the back of the LORD; but he did not see his face." That is almost invariably the pattern with Exodus: the command is given in one text, and then acted out shortly thereafter. But there is no such passage in this case. Nor do I know of other passages that interpret this passage: the divine hand acts, but it does not, as best I remember, serve as a covering (or perhaps scripture would tell us of the divine facepalm  Wink ).

It does not bother me to not have an explanation of this, and I am wary of those who feel they must.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #106 on: December 27, 2011, 10:15:54 AM »

Your "hymns" are mocking a position which can't be found in the teaching of the Church.
Well, I certainly hope the positions I'm mocking cannot be found in the teaching of the Church.

Have you encountered any teachers (whether writers or clergymen you've met) maintaining that Christ faked humanity in any way (not a rhetorical question- sometimes one hears crazy stuff)?.

BTW I found this stuff in St. Athanasius' Third Discourse Against the Arians:

Quote
Therefore this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word, knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not, when He became man, cease to be God ; nor, whereas He is God does He shrink from what is man's; perish the thought; but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh. For as He asked questions in it, so also in it did He raise the dead; and He showed to all that He who quickens the dead and recalls the soul, much more discerns the secret of all. And He knew where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked; for the All-holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself, sent because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace could be greater.


Quote
Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor' but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency , but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word 'disposing all things ,' nor before He became man did He say it, but when 'the Word became flesh.' On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to His manhood everything which, after He became man, He speaks humanly. For it is proper to the Word to know what was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or of the end of these (for the works are His), and He knows how many things He wrought, and the limit of their consistence. And knowing of each the beginning and the end, He knows surely the general and common end of all. Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour has come, glorify Your Son ,' it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man , and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant , to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #107 on: December 27, 2011, 04:41:02 PM »

Have you encountered any teachers (whether writers or clergymen you've met) maintaining that Christ faked humanity in any way (not a rhetorical question- sometimes one hears crazy stuff)?.
Yes.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,452



« Reply #108 on: December 27, 2011, 05:17:25 PM »

I am glad I saw this, because I thought 'written' was the correct term. Now that I know it's not, I'll quit saying that.  Smiley

And I won't say "temples" anymore, except for where my Hindu friends worship!
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,966



« Reply #109 on: December 28, 2011, 03:06:55 AM »

And I won't say "temples" anymore, except for where my Hindu friends worship!

Temple is way cooler and more exotic than boring old church.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #110 on: December 28, 2011, 09:08:20 AM »

And I won't say "temples" anymore, except for where my Hindu friends worship!

Temple is way cooler and more exotic than boring old church.

Fane, me boys, is the word we want
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Babalon
Resident Occultist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnosis
Jurisdiction: A.'.A.'.
Posts: 233


I am everywhere the centre.


WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 28, 2011, 04:40:58 PM »

This was cool, thank you.
Logged

NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #112 on: December 28, 2011, 04:50:52 PM »

This was cool, thank you.
You and Habte share a themesong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP-f8TDb2n4&feature=related
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Babalon
Resident Occultist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnosis
Jurisdiction: A.'.A.'.
Posts: 233


I am everywhere the centre.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: December 28, 2011, 04:54:07 PM »


hahaha laugh I was wondering when someone would bring this up. A toast to you, good sir.  Wink
Logged

NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #114 on: January 03, 2012, 04:46:51 AM »

Fr. Hopko speaks out against referring to icons as "written":

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/our_use_of_words

starts at ~23:30
« Last Edit: January 03, 2012, 04:48:05 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Tags: icons iconography 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.339 seconds with 141 queries.