OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 06:56:54 AM *
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 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?  (Read 8996 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,378


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #270 on: July 15, 2013, 06:06:07 PM »

Middle Santa reminds me of the crucifixion scene in The Life of Brian.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,485



« Reply #271 on: July 15, 2013, 08:34:39 PM »

I hope I never look at any of those pictures again.  They make me mad.  Angry
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #272 on: July 15, 2013, 09:39:21 PM »

I hope I never look at any of those pictures again.  They make me mad.  Angry
Cheer up. Think of the ones I refused to put up.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,378


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #273 on: July 15, 2013, 09:47:55 PM »

Oh pretty please, post those! 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,485



« Reply #274 on: July 15, 2013, 10:02:04 PM »

NO.  How about some nice icons.  That would be much better.  Smiley
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,228


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #275 on: July 15, 2013, 10:18:49 PM »

NO.  How about some nice icons.  That would be much better.  Smiley

Well that would fit in with the general theme of the thread  police

Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #276 on: July 16, 2013, 05:12:06 PM »

Summary of this thread.

"I don't believe in icons. Prove these were here from the beginning"

*evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence.  Give me REAL evidence"

*more evidence submitted*

"I don't accept that evidence either."  *Argument from silence postulated*. "Therefore, icons did not exist and the Orthodox Church is wrong."

No, this sums up the thread.

Please submit to me evidence of icons - either icons or writings of veneration, icons themselves, etc., until 150A.D.

"Evidence" = Pagan art making fun of Christians, Cave art from nearly 300 A.D.
Commentary= YIM stinks, he made up his religion, we are the original church, etc. etc.
Evidence rejected = "Hey guys pagan art making fun of Christians does not prove that icons existed".
More "evidence" = Controversial shroud of Turin, and other icons from 500++ A.D.
More commentary = "Well you made up your faith and EO is the original, look at your blind arguments, argument of silence"
More "evidence rejected" = The shroud of Turin is not a venerated icon, and not even known if it was original.  More of a legend/fable as is the "icon of St. Luke".

So I'm rejecting cave art from well past early Christianity, pagan art making fun of Christians, and the legends of the shroud of Turin & the icon of St. Luke.

Also, I've asked for writings from the earliest Christians or evidence of icons.

Then ial wants me to go find EO texts on icons from 300 LOL, as if it promotes his point.   As much as icons are used in the EO church, if they were original, they'd be written about in as much volume as the church writes about them today "or at LEAST" written about in a couple of spots.

I've been fair and the answers have been once again, pot shots, ridiculous, dodging the point, out of time frame, or dodging the question.

"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
You still have my assignment.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 05:12:33 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #277 on: July 16, 2013, 05:14:24 PM »

Evidence rejected = "Hey guys pagan art making fun of Christians does not prove that icons existed".
I guess icons and religious statues don't exist in the 21st century.


I won't put up more blasphemous selections.

So your argument here is because there is pagan/blasphemous art and icons exist today, that icons must have existed in early Christianity because pagan art did.

Face it, icons are not provable 150A.D. or before.  They were not written about nor do they have artifacts of them from that time period. 

« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 05:16:35 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #278 on: July 16, 2013, 05:57:06 PM »

"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #279 on: July 16, 2013, 05:58:19 PM »

So your argument here is because there is pagan/blasphemous art and icons exist today, that icons must have existed in early Christianity because pagan art did.

Face it, icons are not provable 150A.D. or before.  They were not written about nor do they have artifacts of them from that time period.  
Face it, iconoclasm is not provable 150A.D. or before.  It was not written about nor does it have artifacts of it from that time period.

We're waiting for you writing on icons in the third century.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 06:01:20 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #280 on: July 16, 2013, 07:09:44 PM »

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
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 #281 on: July 16, 2013, 07:12:08 PM »

^clarification... ignored by Jesusisiam
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 07:33:11 PM by Father H » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #282 on: July 16, 2013, 07:13:15 PM »

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,485



« Reply #283 on: July 16, 2013, 08:07:43 PM »

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.
The problem is, until jesusisiam has an actual video with date authentication showing that first century Christians owned and venerated icons, he isn't going to accept it. 
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #284 on: July 16, 2013, 09:23:32 PM »

"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.

Yes, and I asked for EARLY CHRISTIAN examples.  You gave me examples well after 150.    That's why I reject the "cave art".

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

I asked the question FIRST when starting this thread, you haven't done your homework.   Doesn't matter what you ask me about as it holds no relevance.   If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs), nor writings on veneration - then guess what - it only gives more credence to what I am saying.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #285 on: July 16, 2013, 09:37:46 PM »

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.

Yes, I saw it too.

It says "may be".
So there ya have it.  It "may be" the first icon.  It sure looks like icons.  LOL  LOL!!! 
Done in egg tempera.  I wonder if they blessed it, venerated it etc.  Perhaps it was a beam up kiss to a fish.

You can't make this stuff up.  A "speculative" Christian drawing of a fish in a Jewish tomb depicting "Jonah" from the Old testament being passed by EO Christians as an icon.   

Did the researchers even consider Jonah 3 "3 And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying, 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.

Good grief.

Newsflash - they had paint in those times, and paintings.   Icons were "made up" and you people are venerating them thinking you are beaming up the kiss to the saints/god/Theotokos/or Christ.  They were not part of the earliest Christian church.   



Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,438


fleem
WWW
« Reply #286 on: July 16, 2013, 09:40:34 PM »

How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,378


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #287 on: July 16, 2013, 09:55:44 PM »

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #288 on: July 16, 2013, 09:57:58 PM »

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/02/28/Tomb-image-may-be-earliest-Christian-icon/UPI-40211330459794/

Just reposting Seraphim's link, since it seems to be ignored as verifiable evidence for 1st century iconography. 
No, I saw it Father: I just think we can silence Jesusisiam's argument without it.  Whether he'll keep quiet is another matter.
The problem is, until jesusisiam has an actual video with date authentication showing that first century Christians owned and venerated icons, he isn't going to accept it. 

No, I asked for
1) An icon
2) A writing about an icon, veneration of an icon, or how icons are important in worship.... Or anything about icons.  

Nobody has provided that.  I've gotten latter cave art, and a scribble of the Jonah story in a Jewish tomb.  Where's the icons?  Where's the talk of venerating them?

Original church?Huh "Original" with things made up hundreds of years after.

Funny how in nearly every EO book or text today, almost every single one talks about icons.  But in every text I can find from 150AD or before, there is NOT ONE MENTION of them, including in our scriptures.  Nor is there an example of them.

But look at how important they are today.
http://www.synod.com/synod/pictures/dcpastconf_4.jpg

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:

Is it seriously so impossible for any of you to see this direct disobedience to God?   Icons were not in 150, there were no writings of venerations, blessing them, etc.   They sure do exist now, are bowed to, and served.  

I've stated it before, the problem with Orthodoxy is that its either all or none.  There are wonderful things in the EO faith no doubt.  Too bad one can't be an EO Christian and refuse to venerate icons.  Think about it.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #289 on: July 16, 2013, 09:59:31 PM »

How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?

Biro, my point isn't to trash the church, my point is to find truth pushing the muck that a lot of powerful men in charge have hit Christianity with.

We both still love Christ.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,438


fleem
WWW
« Reply #290 on: July 16, 2013, 10:01:18 PM »

You call icons 'muck'? Are you kidding?!

I can't believe you continue to get away with it.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,378


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #291 on: July 16, 2013, 10:06:14 PM »

It says "may be".
So there ya have it.  It "may be" the first icon.  It sure looks like icons.  LOL  LOL!!! 
Done in egg tempera.  I wonder if they blessed it, venerated it etc.  Perhaps it was a beam up kiss to a fish.

You can't make this stuff up. 

Is your central claim that, because we don't find in the first century Byzantine Greek paintings in egg tempera paints on specially carved wooden boards which were called icons, there were never "icons" at all?  That "icon" equals "Byzantine Greek paintings in egg tempera on specially carved wooden boards"?  If so, that's just plain stupid.  That's like claiming that there was no such thing as a Bible in the earliest Christian church because books as we know them were only developed in the third and fourth centuries.

You're right: you can't make this stuff up.  

Quote
Icons were "made up" and you people are venerating them thinking you are beaming up the kiss to the saints/god/Theotokos/or Christ.   

LOL.  You're typing a message on a computer and publishing it on an internet website thinking you are communicating with actual people.  What a stupid thing to do.  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
TheMathematician
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American
Posts: 1,550


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #292 on: July 16, 2013, 10:07:58 PM »

You call icons 'muck'? Are you kidding?!

I can't believe you continue to get away with it.

This is the free for all, so as far as I know, he can
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #293 on: July 16, 2013, 10:10:09 PM »

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    

Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).

Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.   That's why I'm so rough with icons.  The Eucharist belief, I'm there - but icons were not original in any form or fashion.  It only confirms to me that I was deceived and taught something that was wrong in fact - DIRECTLY defying a commandment from God.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,438


fleem
WWW
« Reply #294 on: July 16, 2013, 10:10:29 PM »

Yeah, a nice place for him to vegetate like mold does in real life.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
TheMathematician
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American
Posts: 1,550


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #295 on: July 16, 2013, 10:16:38 PM »

Yesh

An honest question for you. Even if what you say is true, and icons were not originally part of the Church,what does it matter? Just because it is not original does not make it less true, or deserving to be followed. If the Orthodox Church is in fact the fullness of Truth, the Church that Christ founded, does it matter if they were there to begin with, as long as it is correct.


I suppose my question becomes this, what is more important, true Christianity or original?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #296 on: July 16, 2013, 10:19:16 PM »

"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.

Yes, and I asked for EARLY CHRISTIAN examples.  You gave me examples well after 150.    That's why I reject the "cave art".
Which is why we reject your inability to evaluate historical evidence.

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.
I call Him Yasuu' now.  But then, I speak the language.  If I only spoke Greek, in the 1st century, I would call him Iesus.

Again, another argument you continue to press which just confirms ignorance.

And the 1st century of my Church is the 1st century, when Our Lord founded her.

The family of the Lord were referred to in the second century as the Desposynoi "of the master's."  Given the usage of honorifics, in the 1st century I would be addressing as "Master" Mar (the usage is not directly related to the usage you are whining about, for no reason, however).

And I'd be venerating icons.  Just wouldn't have to defend them to non-existent iconoclasm.

Did you locate those third century writings on icons yet?

I asked the question FIRST when starting this thread, you haven't done your homework.
 
Au contraire, I've done both yours and mine.

Doesn't matter what you ask me about as it holds no relevance.
 
IOW you have no evidence to show.

If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)

nor writings on veneration - then guess what - it only gives more credence to what I am saying.
I don't have to guess on your incredulity.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #297 on: July 16, 2013, 10:19:32 PM »

You call icons 'muck'? Are you kidding?!

I can't believe you continue to get away with it.

This section is called "free for all", and I'm in "religious topics".   I can't my faith issues with EO in faith issues because I have been told (by a moderator) that I was not Orthodox (even though I am fully baptized Orthodox and never was excommunicated).   But anyway, I could understand that...

So this section is for "Hot topics" with "debate" intended.

Biro, we can agree in other areas (and we do trust me), but these are deep rooted issues, controversial, and can be harsh.   As an EO Christian (not currently practicing), who has a parent who is a priest, and I've attended St. Vlad's - some of my issues are going to be harsh.

I apologize if they offend.   When I see icons I see them as unoriginal, as there is no proof of them.  Calling them.   "Muck" is layers of stuff thrown on top of something, often not needed, unoriginal, etc.  

Just please remember this section is for debate - at least that is what I've been told.  
The description on this section is - Hot/controversial/debate-intended topics dealing with Religion.

You know what's really funny though - as much as we can all fight here:
We both love God, his son, love his mother...  We both want salvation and to be good Christians. Smiley

Again sorry if it offends.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #298 on: July 16, 2013, 10:20:54 PM »

How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?
Grin Grin Grin This is turning into an absurd discussion about if Virgin Mary or Abraham was the first nestorian.
Of course. Nestorius was the first Nestorian. Hence the term.

Some people refuse to learn from others' mistakes.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,438


fleem
WWW
« Reply #299 on: July 16, 2013, 10:21:57 PM »

I'm done for now, I think my head's going to explode.

« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 10:25:17 PM by biro » Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #300 on: July 16, 2013, 10:26:04 PM »

Yesh

An honest question for you. Even if what you say is true, and icons were not originally part of the Church,what does it matter? Just because it is not original does not make it less true, or deserving to be followed. If the Orthodox Church is in fact the fullness of Truth, the Church that Christ founded, does it matter if they were there to begin with, as long as it is correct.


I suppose my question becomes this, what is more important, true Christianity or original?

Thank you for at least contributing something thought provoking.

The issue at hand for me is, what is "true" Christianity.   Is it the way it was Originally in practice, writings, etc., or is it the way the EO church is today?

For the correctness, I am not sure, and that's what I'm trying to figure out.  The commandments tell us not to bow or serve images in the likeness of anything in Heaven or on the Earth...  EO apologetics try to get around this by saying "it's not the image we venerate, but those depicted in the image".  

Perspective is troublesome.   Do I respect the perspective of those venerating images in hundreds of years after the church incepted, or those who were there with God, or directly after he established the church itself?

It's difficult, and a constant struggle for me.  I've accepted things at face value once in Orthodoxy, whatever they said goes - then I went to a WCC event, and a lot that I thought was part of Orthodoxy was not...

So I really don't know the answer to your question, which is good, but kind of laid out my thoughts.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #301 on: July 16, 2013, 10:28:58 PM »

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    

Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).
Yes.  Mor Ephrem has correct ones, and you made yours up.

Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.
You never tire of plagiarizing the Church's Scriptures.

If you reject the tree, reject the fruit as well.  Someone very wise-the Wisdom of God in fact-said that.

That's why I'm so rough with icons.  The Eucharist belief, I'm there - but icons were not original in any form or fashion.  It only confirms to me that I was deceived and taught something that was wrong in fact - DIRECTLY defying a commandment from God.
relics are a form of icon.

Have you found that third century writing on icons?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #302 on: July 16, 2013, 10:31:30 PM »

"See you a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." Proverbs 26:12

Cave art?  You mean the catacombs?  It predates 300 by quite a bit.  The catacombs go back to  before 160.

The art is dated much past then.  Research it.
Already have (evidently, unlike you).  They date to the third century, a generation or two after 160.

Of course, it would have been easier for you if you were born in the first century of your church, i.e. the 16th century.  Before the catacombs were discovered.

You still have my assignment.
You mean your homework?  We're waiting.

Yes, and I asked for EARLY CHRISTIAN examples.  You gave me examples well after 150.    That's why I reject the "cave art".
Which is why we reject your inability to evaluate historical evidence.

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.
I call Him Yasuu' now.  But then, I speak the language.  If I only spoke Greek, in the 1st century, I would call him Iesus.

Again, another argument you continue to press which just confirms ignorance.

And the 1st century of my Church is the 1st century, when Our Lord founded her.

The family of the Lord were referred to in the second century as the Desposynoi "of the master's."  Given the usage of honorifics, in the 1st century I would be addressing as "Master" Mar (the usage is not directly related to the usage you are whining about, for no reason, however).

And I'd be venerating icons.  Just wouldn't have to defend them to non-existent iconoclasm.

Did you locate those third century writings on icons yet?

I asked the question FIRST when starting this thread, you haven't done your homework.
 
Au contraire, I've done both yours and mine.

Doesn't matter what you ask me about as it holds no relevance.
 
IOW you have no evidence to show.

If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)

nor writings on veneration - then guess what - it only gives more credence to what I am saying.
I don't have to guess on your incredulity.

The years on those were post 150.

ialmisry - THINK - Desposynoi means "of the master" - others say "of the Lord".  The person in reference is Jesus, who is God.  This is much different than calling a man - a bishop, master, in direct defiance of what the true master commanded.

I did not locate the 3rd century writings on icons yet.  If you can find some please share.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #303 on: July 16, 2013, 10:33:14 PM »

How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?

Biro, my point isn't to trash the church, my point is to find truth pushing the muck that a lot of powerful men in charge have hit Christianity with.
Oh? Who would they be, as your iconoclastic forebears had the power and killed the Orthodox for a century?

Calling the image of Someone you claim to love muck.  Nice.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #304 on: July 16, 2013, 10:34:44 PM »

Yeah, and it would have been easier if you were born in the 1st century of your church, because you would have been calling Christ Yeshua, not addressing bishops as Master, or venerating icons that did not exist.

LOL.  I like you, so I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's funny you issue challenges but don't like to have the gauntlet thrown down at you.

It's going to take a lot more than calling Christ "Yeshua" to "go back" to "original Christianity".  I can pray in Christ's own language, and when I do, I call him Yeshua.  But when I pray in English, I say Jesus.  It's a language, not something divine.  English (or any other language, according to Acts 2) works just fine for the name of Christ.  Or do you think that Acts 2 really means that all those foreign nationals who didn't receive the Spirit suddenly had infused knowledge of Aramaic?  

You know, there was another thread where you posted something from some Nazarene sect in Texas, and I mentioned in that thread that the original "Nazarenes" haven't disappeared; that they exist in India as the Syrian Christian community (aka Nasranis, as in "You are talking to a Nasrani" or "Mor Ephrem is a Nasrani").  I think I even posted a link for you to review.  But I never heard anything from you after that.  An inconvenient truth, perhaps, that before Texas was, we were?  

You don't have to do what we do and believe what we believe, but please don't pretend like you've got it all figured out when there are pages and pages of information refuting and challenging your ideas that you have yet to engage.    

Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).
Yes.  Mor Ephrem has correct ones, and you made yours up.

Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.
You never tire of plagiarizing the Church's Scriptures.

If you reject the tree, reject the fruit as well.  Someone very wise-the Wisdom of God in fact-said that.

That's why I'm so rough with icons.  The Eucharist belief, I'm there - but icons were not original in any form or fashion.  It only confirms to me that I was deceived and taught something that was wrong in fact - DIRECTLY defying a commandment from God.
relics are a form of icon.

Have you found that third century writing on icons?

Whoa wait brother, relics are kept in the tradition of Elisha and the bones rising, not icons.

No I have not found any writings about icons from the third century.  If you know of any, feel free to post.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #305 on: July 16, 2013, 10:36:20 PM »

How long are we going to keep letting him trash the Church?

Biro, my point isn't to trash the church, my point is to find truth pushing the muck that a lot of powerful men in charge have hit Christianity with.
Oh? Who would they be, as your iconoclastic forebears had the power and killed the Orthodox for a century?

Calling the image of Someone you claim to love muck.  Nice.

You mean the image made in the likeness of something in heaven that men bow down to and serve?

I don't agree with the iconoclastic behavior, nor any violence, nor the iconodules, nor their violence.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #306 on: July 16, 2013, 10:37:26 PM »

Sorry been a good debate to night brothers and sisters, but several possums are trying to break into the chicken coops, gotta run.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,378


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #307 on: July 16, 2013, 10:45:03 PM »

YiM,

I'll give you credit: that's a much more interesting way to sign out than "Duty calls", as the gnostic fellow did. 

Mad props.

More in a moment.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,485



« Reply #308 on: July 16, 2013, 10:46:40 PM »

Agreed.  How do you fight with a guy who is out laying down the smack on some possums?  Go get 'em, YiM!  Throw and icon at them, that will scare them off.  Wink
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,378


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #309 on: July 16, 2013, 10:58:19 PM »

Well honestly, I wasn't responding to you.   They were just immature and playing on my nickname.  I was just making a point because they can't stand reality, that he was called Yeshua in his own native language.   You should have seen the "arguments" on that argument years back.  

Dare I ask where I might read them?  Dare I?  Smiley  

Honestly, I can't believe that anyone would have an issue with the idea that he was called Yeshua.  But if you take that historical fact and insist that it must be that exact form of the name which is used and no other, that's preposterous.  Even JW's aren't that anal about "Jehovah", and I know because I spoke with one for over an hour on a flight about just that topic.

Quote
Yes, I read your post and didn't respond as it digressed and I wasn't wanting to discuss it (we have different views on the Nazarene Christians - feel free to PM me if you want).

If it's alright by you, I'd rather start a thread about it here and learn about your views on the matter.  After all, I didn't bring up Nazarene Christians, you did, and publicly.  But I am intrigued, since we have a demonstrable lineage that goes all the way back, I don't see how there could be a different view other than "We don't like what you believe"--but it can't be "You aren't real Nazarenes", because there were Nazarenes in India before St John wrote the Book of Revelation.  

Quote
Trust me, I don't have it all figured out.  What I'm tired of is churches saying "We do it the original way", yet they don't.  

I don't think the claim is "We do it the original way" as in "We do things exactly as they did in the first century".  A lot has changed in the way human beings do everything since those days, and religious practices certainly adapt over time.  

I think when people say that, they mean "What we do is rooted in the same faith as those first believers".  Honestly, if a first century follower of Christ took a time machine trip to the present day, they wouldn't recognise a lot of what we do in my parish, and they wouldn't recognise a lot of what you do in your church.  But once they learned a little about what they were experiencing, I think they'd feel at home in our church and would probably think yours was nuts.  Because while both our churches' worship practices have evolved (or been created out of nothing) over time, only one agrees with the faith they believed.  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #310 on: July 16, 2013, 11:05:42 PM »

If there are not church writings up until 300 on icons, barely any examples (that look nothing like EO icons in catacombs)

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

"And when they came into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him" Mat. 2:11

The date that Madonna is within the century after 150.

Have your found the writing on her image in the third century?

ialmisry - THINK
Physician, heal thyself.
- Desposynoi means "of the master" - others say "of the Lord".  The person in reference is Jesus, who is God.
I said as much:
The family of the Lord were referred to in the second century as the Desposynoi "of the master's."
This is much different than calling a man - a bishop, master, in direct defiance of what the true master commanded.
So you say, but the 1st century Church did not so believe.

I notice that you ignored the rest of that sentence:
...Given the usage of honorifics, in the 1st century I would be addressing as "Master" Mar (the usage is not directly related to the usage you are whining about, for no reason, however).
So much for your skills in Aramaic.

I did not locate the 3rd century writings on icons yet.  If you can find some please share.
No, I've done enough of your homework.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 11:07:19 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #311 on: July 16, 2013, 11:20:34 PM »

Sorry been a good debate to night brothers and sisters, but several possums are trying to break into the chicken coops, gotta run.

It really has not been a good debate.  You are repeatedly committing three logical fallacies in debate, namely the strawman fallacy, the "avoiding the issue" fallacy, and the "moving the goalpost" fallacy.  You said that icons today bear no resemblance to anything in the catacombs, evidence is shown to the contrary, and you avoid acknowledging that your claim was proven false.  Why should anyone ever talk to you again until you acknowledge this?  Isa hasn't even whipped out many other examples, including the Trinity catacomb icon.  Instead of acknowledging you are wrong, you keep committing the moving the goalpost fallacy.  SHAME ON YOU.    
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 11:21:15 PM by Father H » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #312 on: July 16, 2013, 11:56:28 PM »

Sorry been a good debate to night brothers and sisters, but several possums are trying to break into the chicken coops, gotta run.

It really has not been a good debate.  You are repeatedly committing three logical fallacies in debate, namely the strawman fallacy, the "avoiding the issue" fallacy, and the "moving the goalpost" fallacy.  You said that icons today bear no resemblance to anything in the catacombs, evidence is shown to the contrary, and you avoid acknowledging that your claim was proven false.  Why should anyone ever talk to you again until you acknowledge this?  Isa hasn't even whipped out many other examples, including the Trinity catacomb icon.  Instead of acknowledging you are wrong, you keep committing the moving the goalpost fallacy.  SHAME ON YOU.    

Wait, what evidence?   A scratchy fish?   Shroud of Turin?   A donkey head blasphemous pagan drawing?   Catacomb art where halos don't exist? (From post 150).

I'm directly confronting the evidence presented, as they were NOT from the earliest Christian church.   I don't know about you guys, but most likely, we are all not going to live for 110++ years.  This is how long the church existed AFTER our savior ascended into Heaven until 150 A.D.  Certainly after the spread of Christianity, the writings of the gospels, and the broad spread teachings of the faith, icons would have existed, evidence would have existed, writings would have existed... But they don't.

I do not understand WHY my arguments are strawman fallacy to you.  I'm directly asking for EVIDENCE from 150 A.D. or before.  Writings, teachings, or icons themselves.   Not shrouds, legends, or myths.

Since a strawman fallacy is when a person ignores a persons position, then substitutes with distorted/misrepresented/exaggerated version of the position.

My original question (position) was asking if there was PROOF of icons by writing or examples of icons themselves from 150 AD or before.

(strawman fallacy response) I was given pagan examples of art, catacomb art from well past 150AD, myths and legends.  This was presented as factual evidence.  My position was attacked based on this argument of incorrect evidence, and I was called wrong and attacked based on this incorrect evidence.   THIS is called strawman fallacy.

I believe the "shame on me" is that my position is retaining solid ground.


Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,416


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #313 on: July 17, 2013, 12:15:18 AM »

Isa - you asked for a writing about icons.  Here is a writing

Tertullian ca. 160-225
"Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: "You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them."

So writings existed post 150A.D. and I don't have an exact date of when Tertullian wrote it.

Lactantius 240-320
"But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous. But they fear lest their religion should be altogether vain and empty if they should see nothing present which they may adore, and therefore they set up images; and since these are representations of the dead, they resemble the dead, for they are entirely destitute of perception. But the image of the ever-living God ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this name from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out of stone, or bronze, or other material, but man himself, since he has both perception and motion, and performs many and great actions. Nor do the foolish men understand, that if images could exercise perception and motion, they would of their own accord adore men, by whom they have been adorned and embellished, since they would be either rough and unpolished stone, or rude and unshapen wood, had they not been fashioned by man.

Man, therefore, is to be regarded as the parent of these images; for they were produced by his instrumentality, and through him they first had shape, figure, and beauty. Therefore he who made them is superior to the objects which were made. And yet no one looks up to the Maker Himself, or reverences Him: he fears the things which he has made, as though there could be more power in the work than in the workman."


ALSO:  According to the book "Praying with icons" by Jim Forest  on page 8 he states that Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria (both who lived in those years you assigned) were against iconography.

Anyway, your assignment wasn't "who was against" or "who they were", it was merely to find writings about iconography in those years.

There ya go.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 12:18:14 AM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 567



« Reply #314 on: July 17, 2013, 01:18:51 AM »

Dear Yeshuaisiam,

Let me help put to rest your appeal to Tertulian and the council of Elvira, et al.

Also…with respect to the image of Jonah and the fish/whale, we know it is a Christian image for two reasons. The writing on the image invokes the resurrection…a Christian linkage between Jonah and Christ, not Jewish (sign of Jonah, remember from the Gospels), and second the place it was found had several crosses cut into the walls…hardly Jewish, but definantely evidence the cross was venerated/held in high honor in the first century Church, being used as a sign of the faith.

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 01:19:58 AM by Seraphim98 » Logged
Tags: icons 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   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 0.171 seconds with 72 queries.