/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Second Council of Nicaea

>>570543

>Second Council of Nicaea

>Argument

It's basically, "be like us or you're a Jew" mentality.

>>570551

ecumenical councils were backed by arguments

go read history, how it even came about

>>570557

Have you even compared the argumentation of the second council of Nicaea to the rest? It's so embarrassing.

>go read history, how it even came about.

Yeah, I found Carpocrates, the raise of monasticism, and influence of the paganism integrated because Roman emperors wanted a "untied" rome empire. There's church fathers/pope who strongly discourage the veneration of icons.

>>570561

so goofy, why even ask if you don't care to learn

Exodus 25:18-22; Numbers 7:89; Ezekiel 41:18-19; Hebrews 9:5

And Iconoclasts are basically proto-muslims. Satan was the original iconoclast, who hated the image of God in Adam and Eve.

Wasn't the first icon created by St. Luke?

First of all, Christ himself is first icon. Finite image of infinite God. Divine essence that you could see with fleshy eyes. Arguments of type "You cannot depict God" is denail of incarnation.

Second of all, the same Christ and his apostles leave us icons, shroud of Turin beeing the greatest o all right after the ultimate icon of Christ, his own Cross. And even in times before we came out of catacoombs, we were painting icons. Thus iconoclast deny works of Christ and his Church.

Third of alleven in times of old testament, when Jews were ubercarnal people surrounded by idolatry there were icons in temple, on ark of covenant, on tent. And those were icons of angels, pure spirit. Thus iconoclast deny works of Father and his Spirit also.

Fourth of all, all who ever read or heared scripture were icons maker. For there were never ever somone who did not created image in his mind of passages of Holy Writ, especially when Writ itself desribe images. Thus iconoclast deny image of God in himself for he deny imagination (which itself is translated from Latin as "picture to oneself").

Fifth of all, dulia is not latria when it comes to icons of saints. Those who deny it are like spiritual newborns who were yet to tase spiritual milk (basics of dogma) and yet claim to have eaten meat.

>>570566

>Exodus 25:18-22; Numbers 7:89; Ezekiel 41:18-19; Hebrews 9:5

Such a terrible argument and we've debunked it a million times yet you continue to use it. Odd.

>>570579

>We've debunked it

Please explain

>>570583

God specifically commanding the use of images of heavenly beings in one specific circumstance doesn't give you carte blanche to use images in worship any time you please.

>>570538

Here's what an icon artist wrote at the time:

>I sketch and paint Christ and the sufferings of Christ in churches, in homes, in public squares and on icons, on linen cloth, in closets, on clothes, and in every place I paint so that men may see them plainly, may remember them and not forget them…

>And as thou, when thou makest thy reverence to the Book of the Law, bowest down not to the substance of skins and ink, but to the sayings of God that are found therein, so I do reverence to the image of Christ. Not to the substance of wood and paint – that shall never happen…

>But, by doing reverence to an inanimate image of Christ, through Him I think to embrace Christ Himself and to do Him reverence… We Christians, by bodily kissing an icon of Christ, or of an apostle or martyr, are in spirit kissing Christ Himself or His martyr.

>>570606

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/irenaeus-and-icons/

>>570668

But it does prove that all iconoclast arguments are null and void.

>>570721

<God specifically commanding the use of images of heavenly beings in one specific circumstance doesn't give you carte blanche to use images in worship any time you please.

>But it does prove that all iconoclast arguments are null and void.

how so?

if you're in a car and say to your kid "don't open the door" while driving, and while parked you say "open the door," are you a liar?

have you contradicted yourself?

have you communicated to your kid that it's now okay to open the car door while the car is in motion?

>>570721

This has to be one of the weakest defense I ever heard.

Polycarp was dead, thus cannot reject any practice of worship towards, so to say he would support this is lunacy. Irenæus is just reporting what happen during Polycarp's martyrdom, no one can truly say he was supporting a practice of worship. Foremost, where Polycarp's martyrdom took place was at Rome, the location Carpocrates was preaching their heresy, therefore one of the locations we should expect to find the "honoring" of saints.

Anti-icon makes sense if you’re a Jew or Muslim, but it’s bizarre to me that any Christian should deny the use of icons. As others have mentioned, Christ is the incarnation of God, and Adam is the image of God on earth. To deny that icons can have Holy purpose is almost to deny the existence of Christ and Adam.

Moreover, aren’t Protestants supposed to have personal relationships with Christ? What better way to have a personal relationship with someone than to remember them through images? A war veteran might remember old friends in pictures, and a crestfallen girl might kiss an image of her lover, but we are not to have icons of Christ? How ridiculous! You must remember God if you want God to remember you, and it is laudable to venerate images of Him.

>>570668

>one specific circumstance

>anon cited two separate instances of Israelites making images of Cherubim

>>570832

>Christ is the incarnation of God, and Adam is the image of God on earth.

irrelevant, neither are man-made idols/images/icons.

>To deny that icons can have Holy purpose is almost to deny the existence of Christ and Adam.

this statement is almost an argument.

>What better way to have a personal relationship with someone than to remember them through images?

in person. God is omnipresent.

>A war veteran might remember old friends in pictures, and a crestfallen girl might kiss an image of her lover

>but we are not to have icons of Christ?

wouldn't it be ridiculous for this veteran and woman to be kissing pictures of a person who is in their presence?

>>570847

We are always in the presence of God, but it is not always easy for us to know that. There are some things on earth that better manifest His presence than others. Is God equally in a pile of sand as He is in an icon? It is not for God’s sake that we make holy images of him; it is for the sake of fickle humanity. Likewise, it was not for God’s sake that he became man but for ours.

>>570847

Imagine this: a girl kisses an image of her long lost lover. Unknown to her, her beloved is standing right behind her, but in her sadness, she, consumed by her tears and preoccupation, cannot see him at all. Is it still absurd for her to kiss the image?

>>570857

No, but it is adultery

>>570854

>Is God equally in a pile of sand as He is in an icon?

i'd say yes, not because of my distaste for the use of icons, i just see that as logically following from my understanding of omnipresence.

>>570857

>Is it still absurd for her to kiss the image?

no, i wouldn't use that word for it.

but what is your argument here?

are you saying icons of God should be acceptable because sometimes we forget or just don't know that we are in the presence of God?

wouldn't giving someone knowledge of this fact be a better solution?

The Early Church had icons and they're useful for understanding and explaining the presence of Christ and the communion of saints.

>>570918

False assumption

"Let every one abound in his own meaning.” Do you call men of this sort idolaters? I do not deny, that all of us who believe in Christ have passed from the error of idolatry. For we are not born Christians, but become Christians by being born again. And because we formerly worshipped idols, does it follow that we ought not now to worship God lest we seem to pay like honour to Him and to idols? In the one case respect was paid to idols, and therefore the ceremony is to be abhorred; in the other the martyrs are venerated, and the same ceremony is therefore to be allowed. Throughout the whole Eastern Church, even when there are no relics of the martyrs…"

Against Vigilantius, Jerome.

>>570939

Man there are paintings in catacombs way older than Jerome. Furthermore, Jerome warns against worshiping idols, something that no catholics or orthodox do. I know it's hard to wrap your head around statues and icons just being reminders and that praying in front of an icon does not mean you are praying to the icon. Jerome knew that distinction.

>>570918

>The Early Church had icons

All evidence points to the contrary

>they're useful for understanding and explaining the presence of Christ and the communion of saints.

What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?

Habakkuk 2:18

>>571043

>statues and icons just being reminders

That is not the Cathodox position

>>571044

>That is not the Cathodox position

So I guess pope st. Gregory the great lied and thank God we now have protestants to interpret our theology

>Not without reason has antiquity allowed the stories of saints to be painted in holy places. And we indeed entirely praise thee for not allowing them to be adored, but we blame thee for breaking them.

>For it is one thing to adore an image, it is quite another thing to learn from the appearance of a picture what we must adore. What books are to those who can read, that is a picture to the ignorant who look at it; in a picture even the unlearned may see what example they should follow; in a picture they who know no letters may vet read. Hence, for Barbarians [those who don't speak Latin] especially a picture takes the place of a book.

Nobody takes iconoclasts seriously.

They are these huge, braindead retards who try to scream at you their nonsensical theories about how opening your eyes and looking at something is idolatry.

They are insane, they are a joke, and they have the nerve to ask for arguments against their arbitrary statements. They are at the same level as mormons in terms of mental stability.

>>571046

>So I guess pope st. Gregory the great lied

Gregory the Great did not hold the Cathodox position. The Cathodox position is expressed in the 2nd council of Nicaea

<For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence

<For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented

Thus, the Cathodox position is far different from the mere reminder of Gregory, and is indeed the very thing he condemns as idolatry in the passage you quoted.

>>571049

>Thus, the Cathodox position is far different from the mere reminder of Gregory

No it's not.

>by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes

>memory

>aka reminder

St. Gregory said

>For it is one thing to adore an image, it is quite another thing to learn from the appearance of a picture what we must adore

The Council said

>For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents

There's no difference between these statements. I just find it very funny that you're trying to convince me I am an idolater because I may pray in front of statues and I expressly say I don't pray to the statue. The Church is saying the same thing but no, you know what we mean better than we do.

>>571052

>>memory

>>aka reminder

Yes, but not merely so.

<by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence

and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence

>There's no difference between these statements

There is quite a bit of difference. Gregory says that images show us what we are to adore, that is, an image of Jesus shows us what we are to adore by showing us Jesus, who we are to adore (keep in mind Gregory's position is still unlawful and contra biblical, just less so than that of the council). In contrast to this, the council says that when one venerates the image, they aren't merely glorifying the image, but that glory also goes directly to the thing depicted (coincidentally, this is also exactly how the heathens defended themselves against the Christians' accusation that they worshipped wood and stone, according to Augustine).

>>571052

Forgot something

>I just find it very funny that you're trying to convince me I am an idolater because I may pray in front of statues and I expressly say I don't pray to the statue

Of course, it would be different if the statue just happened to be there. But if you go up to a statue of someone, kneel down, clasp your hands and say a prayer to that person, you are no less praying to a statue than the heathens of Greece did to theirs.

>>570721

>There is no open and absolute condemnation of representational art here

Well, technically that's true, in the sense no condemnation is levied against anything in the cited quote. At no point in the quote does Irenaeus say "this is bad", he merely records it. It is hard to believe, however, that Irenaeus saw no problem with honoring images after the same manner as the heathens.

>There do seem to be three things that have warranted Irenaeus’ condemnation. First, they claim to have an image made by Pontius Pilate of Jesus. They seemingly use this to bolster their claim to apostolic authenticity. Second, that they set up this image of Jesus along with various philosophers-Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. This implication seems to be that Jesus is one of many men of wisdom.

>Third, that they have other modes of honoring these images on top of the aforementioned practice of crowning them and that these ways of expressing honor are essentially the same as those found among the pagans for honoring their gods. What these exact modes are, Irenaeus doesn’t tell us.

Why didn't the author of this article include the first thing that Irenaeus mentions? He has left out the first of these four, "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material". The fact Irenaeus saw fit to mention this shows the Christians in contrast did not possess images, since it was preposterous enough to him for it to be worthy of note.

>An iconodule can reject all of the practices mentioned here without any inconsistency

No he can't. He cannot reject the use and honoring of images without rejecting his own position.

>Hippolytus’ text is important for three reasons. First, because it is relatively early and not far removed from Irenaeus. Second, Hippolytus’ text indicates that the Carpocrates make counterfeit images of Jesus. And third that they use these images to bolster their claims to apostolicity. Hippolytus makes it seem as if what is objecitonable is not the possession of images or even honor given to them, but that these images are fakes.

The error in this interpretation comes from assuming the existence and veneration of Christian images at the same time. If we remember what is stated in the same sentence, that they believe these images are genuine portraits, the word counterfeit becomes mocking. They claim these images are authentic portraits of Christ when He walked this earth, but the response is that they are "counterfeit", fake. Thus, all images of Christ would be "counterfeit", since they could not be authentic depictions of Jesus as He walked this earth. This was even one of the arguments utilized by the Byzantine iconoclasts; we cannot make images of Christ, because they cannot be sufficiently accurate.

>>571073

>Bad analogy

it fits better with the scriptures than yours.

where are you getting "whiledriving be safe" and "while in car in motion" from the command?

don't [open the door/X]:

<You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. (Exodus 20:4)

do [open the door/X]:

<You are to make two cherubim of gold; you are to make them of hammered metal on the two ends of the atonement lid. (Exodus 25:17)

what makes it okay in chapter 25 and not okay in chapter 20 is the fact that God is explicitly telling them to do this, so what should be taken from this is that the only time you should involve idols in a religious context is when God tells you to.

>Icon = Idol

>implying the cherubim were idols

You can't even tell the difference between these two things, you're hopeless.

>>570538

Do we have any evidence that the Jews venerated or prayed before icons/images before the Incarnation? I understand they couldn't see or even really be aware of Christ, but Apostolics venerate angels (who were visible before the Incarnation, along with the prophets) today. If these things are not a violation of the Commandment, there is would likely be evidence of them doing so. I understand there were cherubim in either side of the Ark, but I'm sort of skeptical that any veneration was directed towards them considering the literal Presence of God sat between them. I think there was also some sort of statue in the Temple courtyard, but I'm unsure of what it represented and whether or not it was venerated/prayed before. I've also never heard of pre-Incarnation images of the prophets.

Help?

>>571155

No idol can ever be lawful. God cannot command or permit the making of idols. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" must be understood in light of "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them". The images which are forbidden are those made for the purpose of being worshipped, nor are we allowed to worship any image already extant. The cherubim were not idols, because they were not made to be worshipped, nor were they put up in the midst of the common people where they could be worshipped in ignorance. Nor was their usage superstitious at all, because they also were not made to show devotion. Rather, to understand the cherubim, we must understand what they figured, which was, obviously, cherubim angels. According to Genesis 3:24, God "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life". Ezekiel 10:1 says "Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne". We can gather from these that cherubim are the angels designated to be guardians of the place of God's presence. Therefore, the cherubim were placed on the ark to serve as a reminder of the presence of Him who sat between their wings, to remind the high priest that he, a sinner, now stood in the presence of the most holy God, and therefore he should be most cautious and afraid. This also explains why we are not commanded to make any images, because whereas their high priest was a sinner to fear, our High Priest is the sinless one who is to be feared.

>>571048

Iconoclasts are a long-line of people trying to establish their own piety by pointing at the church Christ Himself founded, and claiming for over 2,000 years they have been doing it all wrong.

It is ignorant of history, and it excels all reason to claim that over 1,500 years of Christians (whom were ALL Catholic) are all damned.

They will rather blaspheme and jeopardize their own souls than admit they might be wrong.

>>571073

>Unhappy wretch!

St. Jerome is pretty cool. Unhappy wretch is a perfect description of iconoclasts and false accusers, of any age.

>>571191

>The cherubim were not idols, because they were not made to be worshipped,

we are not using the same definition of idol.

>No idol can ever be lawful. God cannot command or permit the making of idols.

going with your definition, idols being targets of worship and not just images, i agree.

>"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" must be understood in light of "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them".

i agree, it's not that images (what i mean by idols) themselves are prohibited, it's the worship of them (idolatry, image worship.)

>>571145

>Well, technically that's true, in the sense no condemnation is levied against anything in the cited quote. At no point in the quote does Irenaeus say "this is bad", he merely records it. It is hard to believe, however, that Irenaeus saw no problem with honoring images after the same manner as the heathens.

But no orthodox Christian generate image like a heathen for a) heathens apply latria to them (thus idolatry) i. place them above sovereign creator b) they do not use images as "windos to heaven" but as heaven iteself.

>Why didn't the author of this article include the first thing that Irenaeus mentions? He has left out the first of these four, "They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material". The fact Irenaeus saw fit to mention this shows the Christians in contrast did not possess images, since it was preposterous enough to him for it to be worthy of note.

If Irenaeus lived few centuries later he would write this "anabaptist baptism adults, sometimes by immersion, sometimes by pouring". Or perhaps "pelagians believe that man have free will". Or maybe "Muslims adore one God only, proffesing that this is God of Abraham and Christ".

Irenaeus just used oldest rhetorical trick ever - deduction, going from general to specific.

>No he can't. He cannot reject the use and honoring of images without rejecting his own position.

As an Iconodule I reject that

>Apostolic authority can be reached from possessing of supposed image made by Pilate

>Jesus was just one of wise-men of old

>Icons are to be honored as idols were

I see no problem with any of it.

>The error in this interpretation comes from assuming the existence and veneration of Christian images at the same time. If we remember what is stated in the same sentence, that they believe these images are genuine portraits, the word counterfeit becomes mocking. They claim these images are authentic portraits of Christ when He walked this earth, but the response is that they are "counterfeit", fake. Thus, all images of Christ would be "counterfeit", since they could not be authentic depictions of Jesus as He walked this earth. This was even one of the arguments utilized by the Byzantine iconoclasts; we cannot make images of Christ, because they cannot be sufficiently accurate.

Shroud of Turin exist you know.

Moreover they are counterfeit for they are claimed to be made Pilate.

>>571155

>it fits better with the scriptures than yours.

No it is not for it breakes first comandment into two.

>Be safe while driving

You shall have no other gods before me.

>Don't open door

You shall not make for yourself a graven image,

or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,

or that is in the earth beneath,

or that is in the water under the earth;

you shall not bow down to them or serve them;

By iconoclast logic you are already idolatrer for use imageboard. Or drawing while being kid. Or takeing photos.

>what makes it okay in chapter 25 and not okay in chapter 20 is the fact that God is explicitly telling them to do this, so what should be taken from this is that the only time you should involve idols in a religious context is when God tells you to.

<Icons of cherubims were idols

<icons are idols

<God tells us to sin, ever

This is why only Muslims take you seriously

>>571191

Do we need to remind you that David leaped before Ark? Do we need you to remind you that at the end of age to come Christ will make Jews bow (and the same word were used as in LXX translation of decalogue). It is relgious enough for ya?

>>571198

You are using wrong definition then. Idol is anything, anyone, any idea or creature ested above God or in place of God. Not all idols are images, not all images are idols. What is so hard to understand here is beyond me.

>>571244

>But no orthodox Christian generate image like a heathen for a) heathens apply latria to them (thus idolatry)

For Irenaeus, any honor shown to images is after the same manner of the heathens

>place them above sovereign creator

No Aristotle was ever stupid enough to consider the idols of their gods which they already considered primely creaturely to be above the prime mover

>they do not use images as "windos to heaven" but as heaven iteself

The heathens of Greece and Rome viewed the profit of images no different than the Cathodox, since none of them were so foolish as to think the image of Zeus one and the same with Zeus, but defended their worship thereof nonetheless by saying that they did not worship the image itself, but Zeus through the image. Likewise, when when you offer dulia to an image of Mary, do you do so as to a mere picture, or through it to the mother of God?

>Irenaeus just used oldest rhetorical trick ever - deduction, going from general to specific

But he merely lists distinctive errors, since he begins and finishes with general things, first "They also possess images", finally "They have also other modes of honouring these images".

>As an Iconodule I reject that

Do you reject the putting up of images of saints in churches? Do you reject showing honor to images of saints as the honor deserving of its likeness?

>Moreover they are counterfeit for they are claimed to be made Pilate

How do you know Pilate ordered no portrait? Neither scripture nor the fathers claimed Pilate did not make an image of Christ.

>No it is not for it breakes first comandment into two.

Those two commandments are not the same thing. It is one thing to say God alone is to be our object of worship, it is an another thing to say that He must be worshipped in appropriate fashion.

>By iconoclast logic you are already idolatrer for use imageboard. Or drawing while being kid. Or takeing photos.

The question is not if it is permissible for images to exist. The question is if they may be objects or modes of devotion.

>Do we need to remind you that David leaped before Ark?

It says he leapt before the LORD (who sits enthroned on the wings of the cherubim), not the ark.

>Do we need you to remind you that at the end of age to come Christ will make Jews bow

He will make them bow in an act of humiliation, not worship.

>Idol is anything, anyone, any idea or creature ested above God or in place of God

And also in addition to God.

>>571244

>What is so hard to understand here is beyond me.

your english skills are poor despite your verbosity, and you're just asserting things without backing them up.