OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 07:51:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why statues are not used in the EOC?  (Read 2508 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« on: February 02, 2013, 05:53:39 AM »

Why the EOC does not use statues like Roman Catholics do?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 05:54:30 AM by kx9 » Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,103


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2013, 06:04:40 AM »

Why the EOC does not use statues like Roman Catholics do?

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 06:04:54 AM by LBK » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2013, 06:27:53 AM »

Quote
A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


In the New Testament, certain changes were made under the New Covenant, such as the lifting of restrictions regarding Kosher foods, circumcision etc.

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 06:32:14 AM by kx9 » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2013, 06:29:49 AM »

Quote

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

I'd like to hear a Catholic response to this post.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,103


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2013, 06:35:32 AM »

Some relevant quotes from St John of Damascus on why icons do not violate the Ten Commandments:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

Since the invisible God became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.



« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 06:36:20 AM by LBK » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,943



« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2013, 06:43:55 AM »

Quote

A VERY short answer:

Orthodoxy has never regarded or used statues as objects of veneration in the same way that icons were and are. Statues are three-dimensional, and therefore naturalistic and earthbound, whereas an icon, with its flatness, non-naturalistic artistic style, and lack of linear perspective, attempts to portray what is spiritually perfected, and not of this world. Statues were also considered too similar in form to pagan idols.

I'd like to hear a Catholic response to this post.

I'm not Catholic but IIRC Cardinal Ratzinger has written that the West never really received or adopted the Seventh Ecumenical Council. There is no concept of canonical iconography in the RC tradition and therefore they are free to use statues.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 06:44:32 AM by Alpo » Logged

Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2013, 06:47:46 AM »


Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,103


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2013, 06:52:08 AM »

There was no outright prohibition of images for veneration in Jewish worship. There are numerous references in Scripture, and these images were ordained by God. They were prevalent in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18

On the curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1

On the veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31

Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1 Kings 6:23

On the walls—1 Kings 6:29

On the doors—1 Kings 6:32

And on the furnishings—1 Kings 7:29,36

In short, there were icons everywhere you turned.

Also, Jewish holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them. They contain illustrations of Biblical scenes, much like those found at the synagogue of Dura Europos (and like the church found nearby) which was buried in the mid 3rd century when the Persians destroyed that city. The earliest icons of the catacombs were mostly Old Testament scenes, and icons of Christ. The dominance of Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a pagan practice Christianised by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by the Christians.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2013, 06:55:17 AM »


Can you please explain why the EOC's practice of using images/icons does not violate one of the Ten Commandments :

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


"And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (Exodus 25:18-20) "

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.
Also the Bronze serpent Moses made, was also ordered by God. So it is another exception.

We can't make images or statues for religious purposes without a specific commandment from God.

Please show me in the New Testament, a specific commandment by God that we can make and use images/statues of Jesus and the Saints.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,103


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2013, 06:56:56 AM »

kx9, is there anything in St John of Damascus' quotes I posted that you find problematic?
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2013, 06:59:04 AM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 07:01:58 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2013, 07:32:24 AM »

Check 7th ecumenical council.

Orthodox Church depict saints in the Church, it just like Israelities in old testament who depict the angels in the temple of God.Orthodox honor the saint, not worship. Through honor the saints(e.g. the miracle works God manifested through His saints), we give the honors to God who is the source of all honor.

For the image of Jesus , the 7 th ecumenical council approved the Church to depict the  human nature of Jesus . Every man in this earth can be seen, drawn and depicted ,and the JESUS became the flesh/man 2000 years ago.Thus, the church can depict human nature of  Jesus.Depicting the Jesus in the icon is the confirmation of the incarnation of Christ.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 07:37:05 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2013, 07:40:23 AM »

Check 7th ecumenical council.

Orthodox Church depict saints in the Church, it just like Israelities in old testament who depict the angels in the temple of God.Orthodox honor the saint, not worship. Through honor the saints(e.g. the miracle works God manifested through His saints), we give the honors to God who is the source of all honor.

For the image of Jesus , the 7 th ecumenical council approved the Church to depict the  human nature of Jesus . Every man in this earth can be seen, drawn and depicted ,and the JESUS became the flesh/man 2000 years ago.Thus, the church can depict human nature of  Jesus.Depicting the Jesus in the icon is the confirmation of the incarnation of Christ.

Pretty much. One correction though: "human nature" cannot be depicted. Persons can be depicted, though.
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,103


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2013, 08:51:21 AM »


Pretty much. One correction though: "human nature" cannot be depicted. Persons can be depicted, though.

Hey, cut walter1234 some slack - he's not even Orthodox, and English isn't his native language, but his post shows a level of understanding that even many cradle Orthodox don't have.  Smiley police
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2013, 11:23:56 AM »

As a Catholic may I just humbly point out that to those who believe  like the OP, both statues and icons are "images" forbidden by God, so both EO and RC are in the same image-worshipping hell-bound boat. ;-)
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2013, 01:22:57 PM »

Why the EOC does not use statues like Roman Catholics do?

They have in the past,
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/01/more-russian-statues.html

http://www.sculpture.permonline.ru/
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2013, 01:33:12 PM »

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2013, 01:54:03 PM »

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

"Anything that is in heaven above" referred to the tseva'ot hashamayim ("the hosts of heaven"), that is the Sun, the Moon and the stars/planets, which surrounding peoples worshiped. The Hebrews called their God YHWH tseva'ot ("Lord of hosts") to show that he was superior to these celestial deities.   

"What is in the earth beneath" would be fertility (terrestrial/chtonian) deities, while "what is in the waters under the earth" - the gods of the sea and the underworld.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 01:55:03 PM by Romaios » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2013, 01:07:23 PM »

kx9, is there anything in St John of Damascus' quotes I posted that you find problematic?

Yes, I find it problematic... explanation given below.



Some relevant quotes from St John of Damascus on why icons do not violate the Ten Commandments:

Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

Since the invisible God became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.


First of all, if John of Damascus had given this opinion based on what was written in the Bible, then it would be of consideration. But I feel that what he has said is just his opinion on something that is not written in the Bible.


It is best not to go beyond what is written.


Therefore it is not wise to quote someone when they have given their opinion on something which the Bible doesn't say or is silent on the matter.

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 01:08:34 PM by kx9 » Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,243



« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2013, 01:09:12 PM »

It is best not to go beyond what is written.

St. Paul disagreed (2 Thes. 2:15)
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2013, 01:21:02 PM »


Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?


Why do you put food in the microwave when the Bible hasn't given permission for it? Better not go beyond what's written.
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2013, 01:26:25 PM »


Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?


Why do you put food in the microwave when the Bible hasn't given permission for it? Better not go beyond what's written.

You're making me laugh.

This is about religious matters, not our daily life.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2013, 01:28:04 PM »

First of all, if John of Damascus had given this opinion based on what was written in the Bible, then it would be of consideration. But I feel that what he has said is just his opinion on something that is not written in the Bible.


It is best not to go beyond what is written.


Therefore it is not wise to quote someone when they have given their opinion on something which the Bible doesn't say or is silent on the matter.

Furthermore, why does the EOC and RCC make images of the saints, when the Bible has not given permission for it either?

Of course you know that Sola Scriptura is an (unbiblical!) principle neither of the two churches agrees with. It is a tenet peculiar to Protestantism and it does not go back any further than the Reformation.

Sola Scriptura is itself an opinion on which "the Bible is silent"...  
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2013, 01:28:33 PM »

Do bible permiss us to put the image/icon of cross in the Church?

« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 01:29:22 PM by walter1234 » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2013, 01:30:28 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2013, 01:34:44 PM »


Thanks for the links.


It is strange that the EOC allowed idols, then stopped it again.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2013, 01:38:01 PM »

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2013, 01:38:36 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.
Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 01:40:23 PM by walter1234 » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2013, 01:45:36 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.
Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol in Judaism.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2013, 01:46:04 PM »

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ  Wink
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2013, 01:47:16 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.

It isn't plain, really. It would be more obvious that the second commandment means that we're not allowed to create images to worship them.
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2013, 01:47:27 PM »

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

They might not have felt it necessary for it to be preserved in writing. That doesn't exclude the possibility of transmitting his portrait orally or by other means.

According to tradition, the oldest icons of Christ were the acheiropoietai - "not made by hand" ones, such as the mandylion Veronica used to wipe his face on his way to Calvary or the one Christ impressed his face on and had it sent to king Abgar of Edessa.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2013, 01:48:46 PM »

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ  Wink

Where is that painting? I haven't heard of it.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2013, 01:51:59 PM »

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ  Wink

Where is that painting? I haven't heard of it.

Here's the story.
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2013, 01:53:22 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.
Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.
I don't care  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 01:56:01 PM by walter1234 » Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2013, 01:55:32 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.
Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.
I don'tcare  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,956


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2013, 01:57:44 PM »

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.

 Huh

Where does it say in Scripture that we can use symbols? Better not go beyond what's written.
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2013, 02:00:43 PM »

However, no changes regarding the use of images was made under the New Covenant, hence we can understand that the Commandment regarding the prohibition on images/statues remains in effect.

The biggest change: God became visible.

”We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - this Life was revealed, and we have seen It and testify to It, and declare to you the Eternal Life that was with the Father and was revealed to us - we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Yeah, that's a good point.

However, it remains a mystery as to why none of the writers of the New Testament gave even a small description of what Jesus looked like.

St. Luke painted Christ  Wink

Where is that painting? I haven't heard of it.

Here's the story.

Good story. But I could not find that painting, or it written anywhere that he painted Christ.
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2013, 02:15:32 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.
Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.
I don'tcare  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.
How do you identify an object is an image or a symbol? Where is the standard? I cannot find the standard it in the Bible.

No matter the cross that Protestant uses is a symbol or an image. The bible does not permiss the Church to put the image or symbol of cross in the church.This practice is beyond what's written.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2013, 02:16:19 PM by walter1234 » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,945


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2013, 02:33:16 PM »

That was ordered by God Himself. So in that case, it was permitted as an exception.

Where's it in Scripture that this was an exception? Or did you make this up yourself?

It is a plain understanding. First the Commandment forbidded it, so therefore it is clear that making an image for religious purposes is obviously sinful, but if God gave commandments for certain images/idols, it is obviously an exception.
Does God/bible command the Protestant Church to grave the image/icon of the cross and put it in the church?

Most protestant Churches use a simple cross. Just as the Jews used the Star of David, which is the religious symbol   in Judaism.
I don'tcare  the cross is simple or not. The cross that Protestant Church use is still the image for religious purposes .

The Cross is a symbol, not an image.
How do you identify an object is an image or a symbol? Where is the standard? I cannot find the standard it in the Bible.

No matter the cross that Protestant uses is a symbol or an image. The bible does not permiss the Church to put the image or symbol of cross in the church.This practice is beyond what's written.

Sola Scriptura?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
freddief
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 66


« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2013, 02:47:26 PM »

There was no outright prohibition of images for veneration in Jewish worship. There are numerous references in Scripture, and these images were ordained by God. They were prevalent in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18

On the curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1

On the veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31

Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1 Kings 6:23

On the walls—1 Kings 6:29

On the doors—1 Kings 6:32

And on the furnishings—1 Kings 7:29,36

In short, there were icons everywhere you turned.

Also, Jewish holy books have been illustrated as far back as we have them. They contain illustrations of Biblical scenes, much like those found at the synagogue of Dura Europos (and like the church found nearby) which was buried in the mid 3rd century when the Persians destroyed that city. The earliest icons of the catacombs were mostly Old Testament scenes, and icons of Christ. The dominance of Old Testament scenes shows that this was not a pagan practice Christianised by converts, but a Jewish practice, adopted by the Christians.

if the cherubim in the tabernacle/temple were 3-dimensional, the why no statues in orthodox churches?  also what evidence do you have that images in the tabernacle/temple were to be/were venerated?
Logged
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2013, 02:49:11 PM »

The best known counter-example is Isaakievsky Sobor in St Petersburg.

http://o-spb.ru/archives/69

It is more a traditional ban than a theological one.
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2013, 02:51:27 PM »

Sola Scriptura?
Many seem to adopt that viewpoint when it's convenient.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2013, 03:15:42 PM »

if the cherubim in the tabernacle/temple were 3-dimensional, the why no statues in orthodox churches?  also what evidence do you have that images in the tabernacle/temple were to be/were venerated?

Veneration is the act of honoring or showing respect.  I think it is very clear from the OT that a great deal of respect and honor was shown to the items and images that were housed in the tabernacle/temple. I don't know of any Christian or Jew, iconoclastic or not, that would say that the ancient Hebrews treated the holy objects of the tabernacle/temple in a flippant or disrespectful manner.

Sola Scriptura?
Many seem to adopt that viewpoint when it's convenient.
If you read the whole thread, I think he was merely using the sola scriptura argument against the initial author who had first brought it up.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 03:17:37 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,945


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2013, 03:28:45 PM »



Sola Scriptura?
Many seem to adopt that viewpoint when it's convenient.
If you read the whole thread, I think he was merely using the sola scriptura argument against the initial author who had first brought it up.

You could be right, but it didn't seem that way.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Tags:
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 0.16 seconds with 73 queries.