OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 07:19:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When were icons first introduced & can be proven?  (Read 9018 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #315 on: July 17, 2013, 01:25:16 AM »

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

There ya go.
Alas!  Your quote mine failed you:
Quote
Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents. Numbers 21:8-9 I say nothing of what was figured by this cure. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. (Against Marcion Bk. 2.22)
To which you can add
Quote
Why, once more, did the same Moses, after prohibiting the likeness of everything, set up the golden serpent on the pole; and as it hung there, propose it as an object to be looked at for a cure? Did he not here also intend to show the power of our Lord’s cross, whereby that old serpent the devil was vanquished—whereby also to every man who was bitten by spiritual serpents, but who yet turned with an eye of faith to it, was proclaimed a cure from the bite of sin, and health for evermore? (ibid. Bk.3.18)
Tertullian is arguing against Marcion, someone who both denied that the God at Sinai was the True God Whose Whole Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ, and Whose Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  Hence is not talking about icons-at least not icons of the first three centuries.  However, he does witness to the thinking of veneration of images:
Quote
Tertullian was so rigorous that at times he linked all images with idolatry. The Marcionites asked how was it possible to reconcile Old Tetstament images with a rigorist interpretation of the second commandment. They rejected the Old Testament God altogether thus avoiding the problem for them. Tertullian had to counter their assertions by creating a special class of images which could manifest the power of what they prefigured.

Fr. Steven Bigham: “What is therefore, the result of Tertullian’s writings on the question of images? The ambiguity remains. He accepted the equation “image=idol” but also accepted non-idolatrous images. He justified these latter images not only by appeal to an extraordinary divine precept, which he invoked not only the bronze snake, but also for the enlarging the category of permitted images that escaped the thunder of the 2nd Commandment. Having thus accepted, some 500 years before the iconoclastic crisis, the essential argument of the iconodules in reference to Old Testament images, Tertullian can only with great difficulty be called as a witness for the supposed hostility of early Christians toward all figurative art.” (Early Christians Attitudes Toward Images, pg. 127)
http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/07/17/tertullian-on-images-in-the-early-church/

As for Lactantius, I've dealt with him before:
SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
Quote
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Quote
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.
Lactantius is talking about idols, not icons.  He is addressing those opposed to the Church, not those within the Church.  His arguments are pagan Stoic ones that had already been argued amongst themselves against their own idolatry, not a critique of Church veneration of icons.  There is also a question about his date-he was born 240, but he was born pagan, and did not receive baptism until the end of the century.

His Stoic arguments would be adapted, however, to the Tradition of the Image and Likeness of God.

The assignment, however, was for third century writings on contemporary icons.  Not Old Testament exegesis, nor apologetics against pagans.  " "Merely to find writings about iconography in those years."

So you better go find them.
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 #316 on: July 17, 2013, 07:56:38 PM »

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

There ya go.
Alas!  Your quote mine failed you:
Quote
Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents. Numbers 21:8-9 I say nothing of what was figured by this cure. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. (Against Marcion Bk. 2.22)
To which you can add
Quote
Why, once more, did the same Moses, after prohibiting the likeness of everything, set up the golden serpent on the pole; and as it hung there, propose it as an object to be looked at for a cure? Did he not here also intend to show the power of our Lord’s cross, whereby that old serpent the devil was vanquished—whereby also to every man who was bitten by spiritual serpents, but who yet turned with an eye of faith to it, was proclaimed a cure from the bite of sin, and health for evermore? (ibid. Bk.3.18)
Tertullian is arguing against Marcion, someone who both denied that the God at Sinai was the True God Whose Whole Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ, and Whose Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  Hence is not talking about icons-at least not icons of the first three centuries.  However, he does witness to the thinking of veneration of images:
Quote
Tertullian was so rigorous that at times he linked all images with idolatry. The Marcionites asked how was it possible to reconcile Old Tetstament images with a rigorist interpretation of the second commandment. They rejected the Old Testament God altogether thus avoiding the problem for them. Tertullian had to counter their assertions by creating a special class of images which could manifest the power of what they prefigured.

Fr. Steven Bigham: “What is therefore, the result of Tertullian’s writings on the question of images? The ambiguity remains. He accepted the equation “image=idol” but also accepted non-idolatrous images. He justified these latter images not only by appeal to an extraordinary divine precept, which he invoked not only the bronze snake, but also for the enlarging the category of permitted images that escaped the thunder of the 2nd Commandment. Having thus accepted, some 500 years before the iconoclastic crisis, the essential argument of the iconodules in reference to Old Testament images, Tertullian can only with great difficulty be called as a witness for the supposed hostility of early Christians toward all figurative art.” (Early Christians Attitudes Toward Images, pg. 127)
http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/07/17/tertullian-on-images-in-the-early-church/

As for Lactantius, I've dealt with him before:
SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
Quote
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Quote
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.
Lactantius is talking about idols, not icons.  He is addressing those opposed to the Church, not those within the Church.  His arguments are pagan Stoic ones that had already been argued amongst themselves against their own idolatry, not a critique of Church veneration of icons.  There is also a question about his date-he was born 240, but he was born pagan, and did not receive baptism until the end of the century.

His Stoic arguments would be adapted, however, to the Tradition of the Image and Likeness of God.

The assignment, however, was for third century writings on contemporary icons.  Not Old Testament exegesis, nor apologetics against pagans.  " "Merely to find writings about iconography in those years."

So you better go find them.

Earth to ialmisry:

You are seriously ruining your own argument.   I don't even understand why you'd assign something like that, as the lack of writing and examples from 150+ to 313, only prove my point better.

The quotes were not about context anyway.

Ridiculous, seriously, ridiculous points you are making.  The assignment is ridiculous as it only proves my point more.

Lactantius was writing about icons as well as idols.

ial, it's admitted in the Orthodox book "praying with icons".   Even the EO admit this!  What you are presenting just makes non-documented points to win an argument on a forum.

The quote from Tertullian was addressing images and how they were different from the serpent on the staff.
Wow brother....

Here let me lay it out REALLY clear for you because you are not seeing the point.

Tertullian's quote:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

So basically you have Moses using a serpent's staff which cured (tool):  Tertullian found this acceptable.  A tool was used.

Then you have bowing down to a similitude of things which are in heaven, earth, and in the waters - Tertullian used the word "latent" (definition - present and capable of emerging or developing but not now visible, obvious, active, or symptomatic ).   He used the words "latent idolatry" - meaning capable of emerging or developing into idolatry.    (then it goes on) "FOR HE ADDS: You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them".



Again - Tertullian:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

There's your assignment.  There's somebody in Early Christianity teaching against bowing to images in the likeness of things in heaven or Earth.

Of course then there's God (you know)  Exodus 20:4-5 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

Okay, what are the clergy doing in the photo above?  Let's just keep this REALLY REALLY simple:
1) They have made images in the likeness of anything in Heaven.  Do you agree?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

If you answer no to either of these two questions, then you are absolutely 100% delusional.  

Forget your assignment, I believe I completed it anyway -

I started this thread and I asked for either:
1) An icon from 150 A.D. or before
2) Writings about icons and/OR the use of them in veneration

Nobody has produced.  I've been given legends only, and twisted logic.


« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 07:59:05 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 #317 on: July 17, 2013, 08:04:11 PM »

Dear Yeshuaisiam,

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

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

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?

Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.

I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.   Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,501



« Reply #318 on: July 17, 2013, 08:11:12 PM »

Here is my opinion about this whole thing.  I venerate icons because the Church tells me it is beneficial.  For me the much greater issue is that, if I believe that the Eucharist is truly Christ's body and blood, I need to be able to explain why it happens and in what circumstances.  Obviously, I can't just hang out in my kitchen, pour a glass of wine and pull a slice of bread out of the breadbox and say a magical incantation and suddenly it is the Body and Blood of Christ.  Scripture is quite clear that worship must be done in the context of the Church.  If it is the Church that sanctions such things, I need to know which Church it is.  Given that the gate of hell can't prevail against the Church, it has to be one of the ones that at least profess to have been around since the beginning.  That throws out protestantism and all other reformed traditions. I am left with RC, EO and OO.  I went with the one that made the most sense to me from a patristic standpoint.  You will note, however, that none of those traditions are iconoclasts.  If you accept that Eucharistic worship is the True Body and Blood of Christ, I don't know how you can hold to iconoclasm.  While I may not fully understand the veneration of icons, I accept it because I TRUST that the Church that is capable of turning bread and wine into Flesh and Blood is also capable of telling me what is beneficial for my spiritual wellbeing.

Until I am able to get a satisfactory explanation on how an iconoclastic Church is able to explain how Eucharist works, I am going to stick with the Church that has given me a good explanation on it, because for me, the Eucharist is MUCH more important that the veneration of icons.
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 #319 on: July 17, 2013, 10:59:30 PM »

Earth to ialmisry:
Heaven to JesusisIam:


You are seriously ruining your own argument.
Yeah, I'll take my chances.
I don't even understand why you'd assign something like that,
I'm sure you don't.
as the lack of writing and examples from 150+ to 313, only prove my point better.
Are you boasting of your lack of understanding?

The quotes were not about context anyway.
Then why were they removed from their context?
Ridiculous, seriously, ridiculous points you are making.  The assignment is ridiculous as it only proves my point more.
Well, we do have to

Lactantius was writing about icons as well as idols.
No, he was not.  Of course, it helps to be familiar with the debates of the day-meaning, the pagan debates with pagans over the use of idols-to know exactly what he is talking about, and where he got it from.
ial, it's admitted in the Orthodox book "praying with icons".
I've personally met and talked with Jim Forrest several times (but not in a while).  He's a nice guy, but not infallible.  And he would be the first to tell you so.  He learned to come to the Holy Tradition of the Church as well, and he is a passionate (despite his dispassionate demeanor) believer in it.
Even the EO admit this!
I know, given that no one ever believed in Jesusisiamism before you, and it will be forgotten after you leave it or leave the earth, that the idea that personal popehood does not exist-instant Tradition: just add opinion to the Church's Scripture-but it does not work that way.  Even if what you are trying to put in his mouth had come from his heart.

What you are presenting just makes non-documented points to win an argument on a forum.
Oh, I play for bigger stakes.  A year before I became Orthodox, I was still burning icons.  So I know this foolishness when I see it.

The quote from Tertullian was addressing images and how they were different from the serpent on the staff.
Wow brother....
Same

Different


That last one is special for you.
Here let me lay it out REALLY clear for you because you are not seeing the point.
If that were true, I would ask guidance from someone who could see, not from the blind.

Tertullian's quote:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

So basically you have Moses using a serpent's staff which cured (tool):  Tertullian found this acceptable.  A tool was used.
an image was used.

Then you have bowing down to a similitude of things which are in heaven, earth, and in the waters - Tertullian used the word "latent" (definition - present and capable of emerging or developing but not now visible, obvious, active, or symptomatic ).   He used the words "latent idolatry" - meaning capable of emerging or developing into idolatry.    (then it goes on) "FOR HE ADDS: You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them".
"they saw the young child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him" Matthew 2:11
"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." Matthew 28:9
"And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him." Matthew 28:17

Of course, you are free to join the Jews and Muslims in denying that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Just change your name to "MosesdidnotseeIAm" or "Muhammaddoesnotknowwhoheis."

Again - Tertullian:  "Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: “You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents."

There's your assignment.  There's somebody in Early Christianity teaching against bowing to images in the likeness of things in heaven or Earth.
to someone who denied that the God who gave the commandments to Moses was the same "God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" and denied that the Word took flesh and dwelt among us, and hence denied that Christ was "the icon of the invisible God" as St. Paul preached.

And he is just repeating what was written in the 13th century.  Nothing on the second century.

Of course then there's God (you know)  Exodus 20:4-5 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

Okay, what are the clergy doing in the photo above?  Let's just keep this REALLY REALLY simple:
1) They have made images in the likeness of anything in Heaven.  Do you agree?
2) Are they bowing down to them?
Real simple-just look to the icon in the middle to the right.

"they saw the young child with Mary His mother" she who held Him Whom the heavens could not hold "and fell down, and worshipped Him"

If you answer no to either of these two questions, then you are absolutely 100% delusional.
Again, we have to bow to your expertise at devising delusions.
Forget your assignment, I believe I completed it anyway -
No, you haven't.  IOW, you failed, defeated in your attempt to prevail where Christ says the gates of Hell never will.

I started this thread and I asked for either:
1) An icon from 150 A.D. or before
2) Writings about icons and/OR the use of them in veneration
Our Lord asks, either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Nobody has produced.  I've been given legends only
ah, proving the warning of Matthew 7:6
and twisted logic.
Proverbs 26:5
You argued from ignorance, and we argued from the wisdom of the Church, the Body of the Wisdom of God.

His intent was that now, through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms. Epheisians 3:10.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 11:09:18 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
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 #320 on: July 17, 2013, 11:36:32 PM »

Dear Yeshuaisiam,

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

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

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?
that is what Our Scripture says: Matthew 12:40.
But since you want to hack at the Tree of Life, the Church, as corrupt, you cannot pick that good fruit.
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
Supposedly the Jews didn't have images, remember?

I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.


look under "Special pleading"
Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

The fruit of our Tree.

You can keep your fruit.

I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.
For those who can evaluate historical evidence, do what Jesusisiam cannot: read the literary evidence of icons and look at the iconography programs of the Churches that survive, from before 730 and after 843. Compare.
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: 18,391


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


WWW
« Reply #321 on: July 18, 2013, 12:06:04 AM »

Of course, you are free to join the Jews and Muslims in denying that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Just change your name to "MosesdidnotseeIAm" or "Muhammaddoesnotknowwhoheis."

LOL!
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 567



« Reply #322 on: July 18, 2013, 03:58:01 AM »

Quote
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?

Yeshuaisiam, this is not worthy of you. No, I don't believe Christians believed Christ was resurrected from a great fish. I believe early Christians took the image and story of Jonah and the whale as a type that prefigured Christ. I also believe that Jesus said that the only sign that generation would receive was the sign of the prophet Jonah. So since Christ identified His own resurrection with the Jonah story, it follows that his disciples and followers would be inclined to do the same and make use of the Jonah and the whale story as a reference to resurrection in Christ our God.

Quote
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
If you are referencing the place where the bone box was found, the crosses present strongly suggest that in addition to being or having been Jewish, this was a Christian grave…very likely that of a believing Jew of that time.

Quote
I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.   Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

The proof…or at least the arguments hardly get any better. It completely demolish any reliance on Tertulian because his habit seems to be say whatever it is he feels he needs to say to win an argument. He is inconsistent with himself.

Elvira was put out of your reach one either one of two points. 1. The seemingly anti image canons were the voice of a local not a universal council, and these canons if they were indeed against images were largely ignored. Further if anti imagistic they were overruled and corrected at the 7th council. OR 2. given that this council happened during the Diocletian persecution the prohibition was not against images per se, but against painting them on the walls. This would be a protection against desecration of worship places by those persecuting them. And it is consistent with the way the Church dealt with other materials associated with corporate worship. The scriptures were hidden during the week (the Little Entrance is the survival of the fetching of them from whoever had the guardianship), The bread used was kept secret, as were the chalice and discos, and what's more, the service itself was committed to memory by the clergy lest it fall into profane hands and be made an object of public abuse or ridicule. They took "Holy things for the Holy" very serious back then.  This last fact, attested to by none less than St. Basil, probably speaks as well to the dearth of writings concerning icons and other matters of the inner life of the Church.

Quote
I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.

What writing do you have of the sacraments? Details of the Divine Liturgy from the Apostolic era Church? Or just some broad references to their existence and benefit?  Also you are arguing from a vacuum. You leap from I don't know of anything written on them from the 1st couple of centuries to an interpretation that suggests either they weren't important or weren't allowed.  You no knowledge of what once was, nor of what was lost during the 150 years of the iconoclastic controversy.  The documents you want may have had their last copies destroyed then.  We don't know one way or the other.  If you have read anything Orthodox about the history of icons you know their use did not spring full blown throughout the Church. It began locally and became universal. 

Consider we do have archeology sites of Jewish synagogues from the first couple of centuries AD, they have lots of Bible story mosaics on their walls. Is it likely that Christian when they had independent places of worship shied away from doing the same thing with both Old and New Testament stories?  Granted the craftsmanship on the little Jonah and the whale engraved bone box was pretty low…stick figure stuff, it shows however crudely  images were part of Christian piety in the earliest generations of the Church…now whether those images were venerated the way we do now, personally I would sort of doubt it initially, though I imagine certain items associated with the Lord and His Mother would have been treated with a great deal of reverence and care. 

Given that the earliest know extant icon of the sort we now recognize is found on a sarcophagus dated around 270 AD, assuming you are going to exclude St. Luke's work, and the Holy Mandylion as unreliable legends, it's not reasonable to go looking for a full blown expression or theological discussion of them (that did not become necessary until several hundreds of years later) in Apostolic and immediately post apostolic times. The use of icons develop and grew, with the primary fonts being the Church around Jerusalem and Alexandria. Remember the funerary portraits of Egypt and Palestine…well those of martyrs were attached to their sarcophagi. And it became common fairly soon to bring the relics of Martyrs into the places of worship in their ossuary boxes…which their image attached. You want first century proof of this, then I invite you to take a trip to Alexandria. Go to the Cathedral of St. Mark.  They will direct you to a little stair near the front of the Church, It goes down to their catacombs, and one of the first tombs you see, if that of St. Mark. Christians have been worshiping on that spot from Apostolic times. They build their cathedral over St. Mark's grave….and you better believe they have images of St. Mark…also, they are Coptic, and not in communion with the E.O. since the falling out at the Council of Chalcedon.  Showing honor to the relics of Christian Sts. and Martyrs has a very deep history in the Church…Apostolically deep, and it was doubtless in that era or shortly thereafter formal veneration of Sts. relics were established…and part and parcel to those relics were their containers, many of which possessed images, not only taken from the Bible, but of the person themselves.  And you can see by the time of the council of Elvira (305) and the writings of Eusebius, that by the dawn of the fourth century icons were wide spread and commonly used in conjunction with Christian worship. To reiterate a point…not of this appeared in a vacuum over night. It grew and developed.

So frankly, I don't think there is much to find icon wise from 150 back…assuming much of anything that old has survive. Other than a few special examples the nature of Christian liturgical art from the earliest centuries is limited to the Cross, Biblical references, borrowed symbolic images (good shepherd) , and rebus images (ICTHUS). It wasn't until the late third century, that anything like modern icons make a broad appearance.

So, by in large while present in small numbers here and there, they did not become an inseparable and necessary part of the teaching of the Gospel until the time of the Iconoclastic controversy.  That was when the theology and the meaning of the icons present in the Church were examined in detail. That's when rules were given to distinguish between right use, questionable use, and unquestionably prohibited use…and that examination came at the price of the blood of the faithful. From that point on images were a key resource for the affirmation of the reality of the incarnation of Christ, and have remained so ever since.

In short, you ask for impossible things, interpret the absence of these impossible things to suit your own fancy, all the while ignoring the testimony of the Church and Her Councils.  I don't really know what more is to be said. Orthodox accept the authority of the councils as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church and offering Her governance. The last Ecumenical Council spoke on, and affirmed the theology and right use of icons in the Church. The matter has been closed for over a 1000 years. Is it better to believe God or man? God has spoken in the great council. That settles the question, for as the Scriptures show, the Spirit and the Bride, speak as one.
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,526



« Reply #323 on: July 18, 2013, 08:06:57 AM »

Really, all we have to do is look inside a Christian church building that was constructed for that purpose in the first century.
yeshuaisiam politely ignored this comment I made way back in this thread. I'm not aware of any buildings that were constructed by Christians in the first century for the sole purpose of being a place of worship. Perhaps yesh is planning another fruitless thread on that topic.

However, I think this thread has run its course. Nothing really new has been posted for some time. We're down to the "let's just have some fun" stage  Cheesy. Carry on, boys!
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #324 on: July 18, 2013, 08:07:55 PM »

Dear Yeshuaisiam,

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

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

As for the rest…I've can't give you a snapshot of a first century icon in the Novogrod style…but I can provide you with the sledge hammer that beats the lignin out of your core argument, and a number of the sources your argument depends upon.  It is an article by people learned in these matters concerning the evidence for a Patristic argument against Icons. I hope you find it useful in evaluating and reevaluating your present position on icons. It is quite well researched. But see for yourself: http://onbehalfofall.org/2013/05/25/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons/
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?
that is what Our Scripture says: Matthew 12:40.
But since you want to hack at the Tree of Life, the Church, as corrupt, you cannot pick that good fruit.
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
Supposedly the Jews didn't have images, remember?

I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.


look under "Special pleading"
Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

The fruit of our Tree.

You can keep your fruit.

I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.
For those who can evaluate historical evidence, do what Jesusisiam cannot: read the literary evidence of icons and look at the iconography programs of the Churches that survive, from before 730 and after 843. Compare.

You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

Make all the jokes you want as comedy doesn't validate any points.
Nobody has shown any proof 150A.D. or before. 
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 #325 on: July 18, 2013, 08:17:02 PM »

Quote
So you believe that Early Christians believed that Christ was resurrected from the great fish?

Yeshuaisiam, this is not worthy of you. No, I don't believe Christians believed Christ was resurrected from a great fish. I believe early Christians took the image and story of Jonah and the whale as a type that prefigured Christ. I also believe that Jesus said that the only sign that generation would receive was the sign of the prophet Jonah. So since Christ identified His own resurrection with the Jonah story, it follows that his disciples and followers would be inclined to do the same and make use of the Jonah and the whale story as a reference to resurrection in Christ our God.

Quote
Look at the scriptures I posted from the book of Jonah.  It was in a Jewish tomb.
If you are referencing the place where the bone box was found, the crosses present strongly suggest that in addition to being or having been Jewish, this was a Christian grave…very likely that of a believing Jew of that time.

Quote
I read the article, and still wait for some reasonable proof.   Direct writings of icon usage (or about icons in general) from pre 150, or icons themselves.

The proof…or at least the arguments hardly get any better. It completely demolish any reliance on Tertulian because his habit seems to be say whatever it is he feels he needs to say to win an argument. He is inconsistent with himself.

Elvira was put out of your reach one either one of two points. 1. The seemingly anti image canons were the voice of a local not a universal council, and these canons if they were indeed against images were largely ignored. Further if anti imagistic they were overruled and corrected at the 7th council. OR 2. given that this council happened during the Diocletian persecution the prohibition was not against images per se, but against painting them on the walls. This would be a protection against desecration of worship places by those persecuting them. And it is consistent with the way the Church dealt with other materials associated with corporate worship. The scriptures were hidden during the week (the Little Entrance is the survival of the fetching of them from whoever had the guardianship), The bread used was kept secret, as were the chalice and discos, and what's more, the service itself was committed to memory by the clergy lest it fall into profane hands and be made an object of public abuse or ridicule. They took "Holy things for the Holy" very serious back then.  This last fact, attested to by none less than St. Basil, probably speaks as well to the dearth of writings concerning icons and other matters of the inner life of the Church.

Quote
I have writings of the sacraments.  I have writings of many Early church practices.  But there is nothing about icons - yet they are immensely used in the EO church.

What writing do you have of the sacraments? Details of the Divine Liturgy from the Apostolic era Church? Or just some broad references to their existence and benefit?  Also you are arguing from a vacuum. You leap from I don't know of anything written on them from the 1st couple of centuries to an interpretation that suggests either they weren't important or weren't allowed.  You no knowledge of what once was, nor of what was lost during the 150 years of the iconoclastic controversy.  The documents you want may have had their last copies destroyed then.  We don't know one way or the other.  If you have read anything Orthodox about the history of icons you know their use did not spring full blown throughout the Church. It began locally and became universal. 

Consider we do have archeology sites of Jewish synagogues from the first couple of centuries AD, they have lots of Bible story mosaics on their walls. Is it likely that Christian when they had independent places of worship shied away from doing the same thing with both Old and New Testament stories?  Granted the craftsmanship on the little Jonah and the whale engraved bone box was pretty low…stick figure stuff, it shows however crudely  images were part of Christian piety in the earliest generations of the Church…now whether those images were venerated the way we do now, personally I would sort of doubt it initially, though I imagine certain items associated with the Lord and His Mother would have been treated with a great deal of reverence and care. 

Given that the earliest know extant icon of the sort we now recognize is found on a sarcophagus dated around 270 AD, assuming you are going to exclude St. Luke's work, and the Holy Mandylion as unreliable legends, it's not reasonable to go looking for a full blown expression or theological discussion of them (that did not become necessary until several hundreds of years later) in Apostolic and immediately post apostolic times. The use of icons develop and grew, with the primary fonts being the Church around Jerusalem and Alexandria. Remember the funerary portraits of Egypt and Palestine…well those of martyrs were attached to their sarcophagi. And it became common fairly soon to bring the relics of Martyrs into the places of worship in their ossuary boxes…which their image attached. You want first century proof of this, then I invite you to take a trip to Alexandria. Go to the Cathedral of St. Mark.  They will direct you to a little stair near the front of the Church, It goes down to their catacombs, and one of the first tombs you see, if that of St. Mark. Christians have been worshiping on that spot from Apostolic times. They build their cathedral over St. Mark's grave….and you better believe they have images of St. Mark…also, they are Coptic, and not in communion with the E.O. since the falling out at the Council of Chalcedon.  Showing honor to the relics of Christian Sts. and Martyrs has a very deep history in the Church…Apostolically deep, and it was doubtless in that era or shortly thereafter formal veneration of Sts. relics were established…and part and parcel to those relics were their containers, many of which possessed images, not only taken from the Bible, but of the person themselves.  And you can see by the time of the council of Elvira (305) and the writings of Eusebius, that by the dawn of the fourth century icons were wide spread and commonly used in conjunction with Christian worship. To reiterate a point…not of this appeared in a vacuum over night. It grew and developed.

So frankly, I don't think there is much to find icon wise from 150 back…assuming much of anything that old has survive. Other than a few special examples the nature of Christian liturgical art from the earliest centuries is limited to the Cross, Biblical references, borrowed symbolic images (good shepherd) , and rebus images (ICTHUS). It wasn't until the late third century, that anything like modern icons make a broad appearance.

So, by in large while present in small numbers here and there, they did not become an inseparable and necessary part of the teaching of the Gospel until the time of the Iconoclastic controversy.  That was when the theology and the meaning of the icons present in the Church were examined in detail. That's when rules were given to distinguish between right use, questionable use, and unquestionably prohibited use…and that examination came at the price of the blood of the faithful. From that point on images were a key resource for the affirmation of the reality of the incarnation of Christ, and have remained so ever since.

In short, you ask for impossible things, interpret the absence of these impossible things to suit your own fancy, all the while ignoring the testimony of the Church and Her Councils.  I don't really know what more is to be said. Orthodox accept the authority of the councils as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church and offering Her governance. The last Ecumenical Council spoke on, and affirmed the theology and right use of icons in the Church. The matter has been closed for over a 1000 years. Is it better to believe God or man? God has spoken in the great council. That settles the question, for as the Scriptures show, the Spirit and the Bride, speak as one.

Hi, you are right, and I didn't mean that to come off insulting at all.  It was just the point that the resurrection quote coming from a man out of a large fish would most likely reference Jonah.  If it was Christian making a reference to Christ, then its still a far cry from iconography.

Yes I have many writings of the sacraments in the church from early Christians.   In fact they are in the bible.

1) Communion
2) Confession
3) Ordination
4) Unction
5) Matrimony
6) Baptism

Those six are in the scriptures.  (Still looking for Chrismation directly, but could coincide with unction, and was also written about early on) .

So all these things existed.   Not just scripturally, but in the early writings as well.

But nothing- not one thing about icons.     The importance of iconography emphasized by the EO faith, is rather disturbing compared to the non-emphasis or existence of icons from the earliest Christians. 
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 #326 on: July 18, 2013, 08:18:43 PM »

Really, all we have to do is look inside a Christian church building that was constructed for that purpose in the first century.
yeshuaisiam politely ignored this comment I made way back in this thread. I'm not aware of any buildings that were constructed by Christians in the first century for the sole purpose of being a place of worship. Perhaps yesh is planning another fruitless thread on that topic.

However, I think this thread has run its course. Nothing really new has been posted for some time. We're down to the "let's just have some fun" stage  Cheesy. Carry on, boys!

Why would I have to address quotes that we all know are simply not true?   When I get 20 replies I'm like "blah" to strange stuff.

heh, fun.....   I really think if an icon debate is fun, or rather thinking that I'm actually personally insulted by stuff like this, or bothered, you are very wrong.   There is a big X on firefox and I have a wonderful family.

I'm just a person who want to find truth.   Figuring if anybody could show me real proof, then I would need to re-analyze my position.  However, they have not, and run the usual course of what makes them feel better..... Or "fun". 
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 08:21:25 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,501



« Reply #327 on: July 18, 2013, 09:30:33 PM »

Yeshuaisiam,
When you get the chance, can you respond to my post 318?  I know I rag on you a lot, but I was actually serious in that post. My thinking in that post is what I struggle with most when I try to understand where you are coming from. Thanks!  Smiley
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #328 on: July 19, 2013, 12:43:28 PM »

One of the things to consider is that icons aren't just these images painted on a board. Icons include frescoes, mosaics, cloth, pottery and anything else that could have iconography painted/rendered on it.

Sadly I just had many hours of work erased on Wikimedia because of some guy who is Russian and "Orthodox" but thinks icons are only the things paintings on boards and that frescoes, mosaics etc... are totally different. Surprisingly it seems the guy is cradle Orthodox, and you'd think he'd know enough about Orthodoxy to know that icons includes more than just icons painted on a wooden board.

Because of this definition, we can say icons were first introduced probably in the 1st Century, and definitely by the 2nd Century.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 12:52:25 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,820


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #329 on: July 19, 2013, 12:50:21 PM »

You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

"I will bow down toward your holy temple" -Psalm 138:2

Stop posting nonsense.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #330 on: July 19, 2013, 12:57:28 PM »

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea? 

Heaven:



Earth:



Under the sea:

Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,451


fleem
WWW
« Reply #331 on: July 19, 2013, 01:10:26 PM »

When the Jews received the Commandments, where had they just left? Egypt. What did the Egyptian gods look like? They had animal heads - birds which lived in the sky, hippos which lived in the water, etc. It should be pretty clear to anyone with a lick or two of memory retention that the Commandment warns against returning to the worship of the pagan Egyptian gods. Don't make images of Thoth, Horus, etc.

When did Moses become furious with the people and smash the first set of tablets? When he saw them worshiping a false image, that of a pagan bull god.

Yet he kept the second set of tablets themselves, which were images of God's words. So, there must have been a difference between images that were acceptable and those that were not. Note that the Commandment doesn't say, "Don't make images" and stop right there. The fact that there is differentiation to be made, can be seen when the Lord commanded the building of the Ark of the Covenant.

But I guess some people will never see it that way. Too bad.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 01:11:09 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
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #332 on: July 19, 2013, 10:54:41 PM »

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

Why do you hate electricity so much?

even though I am fully baptized Orthodox and never was excommunicated). 

You did it by yourself.

Quote
As an EO Christian (not currently practicing),

As a nonpracticing rapist...
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 #333 on: July 20, 2013, 11:22:13 PM »

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea? 

Heaven:



Earth:



Under the sea:



Excellent.  However, there is only one problem, you actually answered his question.  As I have said originally, time for Jesusisiam to move the goalposts (maybe we will need to prove it pre-50AD this time). 
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 #334 on: July 20, 2013, 11:25:01 PM »

You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

"I will bow down toward your holy temple" -Psalm 138:2

Stop posting nonsense.

Exactly Cyrillic.  If the question of if "they" includes the devout Hebrews of old, the question is answered very easily.  Yes, they did on both accounts to #s 1 and 2
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 #335 on: July 20, 2013, 11:28:51 PM »

You can't answer TWO simple questions:

1) Did they make an image of anything in heaven, on Earth, or under the sea?
2) Are they bowing down to them?

Very very simple questions.
God told you not to do these things.

Make all the jokes you want as comedy doesn't validate any points.
Nobody has shown any proof 150A.D. or before. 

The commandment forbids bowing down to any eidolon (idol), not any eikon (image).  So stop saying "image," because it is avoiding the issue (whether icons and idols are the same thing, which they are not, and there is a bronze serpent and engraved cherubim to prove it).   
Logged
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 817



« Reply #336 on: August 02, 2013, 03:43:56 AM »

Excellent.  However, there is only one problem, you actually answered his question.  As I have said originally, time for Jesusisiam to move the goalposts (maybe we will need to prove it pre-50AD this time).  

 Grin This put a smile on my face.

I notice that the OP hasn't responded to their thread in some time.  Is it safe to say that he knows he's been proven wrong  conclusively and repeatedly?   

In all seriousness, OP, I hope you are praying about this rather than re-grouping.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 03:56:31 AM by john_mo » Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
Jord
Det växer hår i mina näsborrar.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Swedish Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Romanian Orthodox Diocese Of Northern Europe
Posts: 76



« Reply #337 on: August 02, 2013, 01:11:03 PM »

Not interested in "Legends" (St. Luke's icon that can't be proven), I am interested in the first iconography that was used & venerated by the Christians - that can be proven.

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

Also, I am not interested in Christian art, such as the fish which was not venerated, or wax sealers.  I'm interested in when they were implemented into the Liturgy and worship practice (veneration) of the Eastern Orthodox church.

I do not know what the answer to your question is, even if I know that the practice of praying through icons is old.

What age would justify veneration in your eyes? Is there a limit somewhere?
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 0.161 seconds with 50 queries.