/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

STOP DEPICTING THE FATHER

>>655427

Why, are you suggesting that part of the Trinity is elevated and separate from the other parts? If we have the ability to portray 2/3 of the Trinity in art, why not the other 1/3?

>>655463

I didn't realize that Ezekiel was an iconographer and that John of Damascus' theology of icons, the basis of most peoples theology in regards to icons, is completely bongoed

>>655475

The word became incarnate and is therefore able to be depicted. The Holy Spirit appeared in multiple sense and is able to be depicted in them (tongues of fire, dove, etc.) but did not become incarnate so we should be slightly more reserved with out use of these for depicting the Spirit, the Father is not able to be depicted and that is just standard theology, not really debated by people who want to be serious about historic beliefs in regards to iconography

>>655427

>>>/islam/

>>655624

READ THE CHURCH FATHERS

>>655628

Didn't stop Michelangelo, and he was Catholic.

>>655638

Since when have Scripture and Patristics stopped Catholics from doing anything

>>655427

>>655502

>>655628

>>655641

There are Orthodox icons in my church depicting father as well with triangle hallow.

Curb your autism

>>655843

Those aren't 100% fine as you think them to be.

Anyways I doubt you'd listen to a anon in a Imageboard so I'll instead recommend you ask your priest about it.

>>655845

So when God became Flesh, did He break His own commandments?

This also means that we cannot draw nor sculpt anything.

>>655845

>commandment is literaly "dont create images, don't worship them"

>retarded protestants cling to the first part, ignoring the second

>same retarded protestant fails to understand that graven images encompass literally every visual art, religous or not

>>655475

Well, the closest thing the Holy Spirit seems to have taken as a "corporeal form" is a dove.

Even then, it's far easier to draw a painting with a bearded, elderly man and a young man with curly brown locks than a small bird.

>>655853

Welp, probably should have read the post that post was replying to.

>>655502

>I didn't realize that Ezekiel was an iconographer

He did see Father (or rather representation of him) though.

3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen (Christ), which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;

4 And the Lord (Father) said unto him (Christ), Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark (Tau/Tav Cross) upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

>John of Damascus' theology of icons, the basis of most peoples theology in regards to icons, is completely bongoed

Never said that. But I do say that in this one regard Damascene was wrong. For who seen Christ seen Father, for hypostatic union is insoluble, for there is no human person of Christ, only divine one.

Plus Seventh and Eight councils are silent on matter

>>655914

>denying that Grace in Christians would not allow that

>claiming that abuse makes proper use evil

>>655883

>There is no human nature if Christ

Heresy

>>655914

by that logic Christians shouldn't pray lest prayer become incantations and summonings

>>655939

Show me where in the OT that says you can make graven images of God "the proper way". Ill wait

>>655950

No, he said person, not nature. There are no separate God-Jesus and Human-Jesus persons, just one Jesus. The former is known as Nestorianism

>>655958

Arc of the Covenant. That itself was an icon and was covered in icons.

>>655958

Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also.

>>655843

They should be destroyed just like we destroyed the icons of the bizarre Russians that went to far, although we should be respectful in their destruction as they usually depict more than just the undepictable person of the Father

>>655845

Read on the divine images

>>655883

And he went home and drew a picture of what he saw?

>>656008

What matter is that he did saw this. Ergo, it was possible to see representation of Father.

>>656019

-_-