/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>702023

It's simply a window into a spiritual reality. Every detail in a properly done icon is "accurate" in reflecting spiritual truth, which is why they were approved for Christian learning.

dont even mention that goofball ironically, this board has benefited so much since braptist posting has gone down

>>702031

Is that something Jesus would say?

>>702023

>You are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them.

>For they look, but they don’t really see.

>They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand.

>But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but they didn’t see it. And they longed to hear what you hear, but they didn’t hear it.

>>702034

I think he would speak even harsher words, similar to what the pharisees and jews deserved, perhaps even make a cord of whips! but I dare not go that far against the goofball and false preacher of lies and darkness.

>>702023

If the first icon was really painted by Luke, why was this not cited immediately to just end the iconoclasm debate in its tracks?

Protestants came to an anti-icon stance because they read the bible and the church fathers

https://calvinistinternational.com/2013/04/30/irenaeus-and-images/

I have never heard an argument for icons that I found convincing. I earnestly want to hear one though, because I do like the eastern orthodox church.

The icon issue was solved 1300 years ago by the unified church. Are people still complaining about this?

>>702235

That is bold claim, any proof the fathers taught against icons. That quote doesn't condemn the use of icons anywhere? do we put images of philosophers next to Christ? do we make offerings to them like gentiles? no we don't so please show me these Church Fathers.

>>702235

Nothing in that quote condemns use of icons. Wow.

>>702235

I had a look at the article on that website and it is absolute nonsense.

>He does not say that the Second Commandment is no longer binding. Neither does he say that it prohibited pagan icons only. In fact, he explains that the Jews did not use their images in an idolatrous manner.

Orthodox Christians don't think the second commandment is no longer binding. Neither do we think that it is ok to use icons in idolatry. I really don't want to read the rest of this article when he is this aggressively ignorant right off the bat. The rest lf the article basically assumes we worship images and then goes and finds quotes from fathers against worshipping images

>>702243

>>702245

>>702246

I post one tiny little article as an example and you guys think that's the entirety of the material.

Give me a break you psychos. Overly defensive much?

The fact of the matter is, history shows that the fathers were divided on the use of images in worship. You can see this very clearly in the council that had 300 bishops that you say is a fake council and was corrected by the official 7th council.

So don't pretend that this line of thought was not present. It's goofy.

What is more beneficial is explaining the logic behind the use of images in worship as you understand it.

I have never heard a convincing argument for icons but I am open to hearing and believing one. Because I do like the Eastern Orthodox (at least when they're not suffering massively form convertitis)

>>702235

Icons depict what's been revealed, depicting Christ in images is an affirmation of his incarnation and is theologically correct

>>702276

Is it necessary to draw a picture of Christ and tell people to bow down to it in order to affirm the incarnation?

Christ said himself "blessed are those that have not seen"

And it would seem that he instituted the bread and wine to be our remembrance of him

And not to mention that God incarnated before photography was invented, and the first icon of Christ that is supposed to actually be him dates very late.

>>702293

The eastern Christian practice of bowing and kissing icons is their own way of showing devotion and love for Jesus and the saints. Would you say that to someone embracing a picture of a far away loved one? Images are part of how we connect and communicate, protestants really grasping at nothing. Also you're wrong about the eucharist, the scriptures, early church fathers, and saints all disagree with your interpretation of Christ's body and blood

>>702293

People in the Bible bow down to those they respect all the time. David bows down to Jonathan, for example. There is nothing wrong with bowing to someone as a sign of reverence or respect.

>>702314

>There is nothing wrong with bowing to someone as a sign of reverence or respect.

I never said there was something wrong with this. I agree that man is made in the image of God and positions of authority should be respected.

But it's a big leap for you to go from David bowing to Jonathan to drawing a picture of Christ and telling people to bow before it and saying it is a means of getting grace and anathema to those that do not do so.

>>702316

Let's pretend the science doesn't refute this. Shouldn't all icons of Jesus look exactly like this?

>>702328

>Let's pretend the science doesn't refute this

Easily done, since it doesn't.

>Shouldn't all icons of Jesus look exactly like this?

Funny you say, since it is in fact very similar to the common images you'd find of Jesus today.

>>702316

Almost all the depictions of Jesus look similar to the shroud of Turin

>>702333

>Easily done, since it doesn't.

I've never seen this information before. Do you have something to share that says it's from 33AD? I've only seen it dated to the middle ages.

You should John of Damascus's In Defense of Icons and Theodore the Studite's On the Holy Icons.

>>702328

>drawing a picture of Christ and telling people to bow before it and saying it is a means of getting grace and anathema to those that do not do so

My priest once was making fun of my mother and some other women who were kissing all the icons in the church in a row. He was saying "girls please don't leave any icon kissless, please don't leave any icon kissless" lol and he is an ultra concervative 70 year old man. What i mean to say is that no one is obliged to venerate the icons, it's a sigh that you love the person depicted in it.

Although sometimes for some people it becomes just a habbit and this is bad of course, the point is to feel what you're doing and to know why you're doing it.

Like crossing yourself in public, when you pass by a church, it's not that you absolutely have to do it or else you are a bad Christian. It only serves as a testimony (martyria) that you're a believer of Christ and will probably boost the morale of another Christian that'll see you. Like the icons, some things are meant to help us in our lifes as Christians but are not mandatory.

>>702651

>Like the icons, some things are meant to help us in our lifes as Christians but are not mandatory.

This is the Anglican understanding of images. Helpful, not necessary, and not a faucet to get your grace meter filled up.

I agree. But from what I've read of the 7th council, they go way overboard

>>702392

This is very interesting information. Here's the question then: Are we required to bow down before the shroud and make pilgrimages to it.

I suspect that you would say no. I would say no as well for the same reason that the Israelites did not bow down before images of the burning bush or for the same reason they didn't bow down and worship the ark of the covenant.