/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>760078

Bump. Also interested.

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/08/photos-of-abandoned-russia/566984/

Don't have any saved pictures of icons. But for the sake of the thread, here's this. There are some neat pictures of Orthodox churches

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

>>760345

"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived."

https://www.britannica.com/event/Iconoclastic-Controversy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea

>>760348

>Good thing we're not under the Old Law anymore

It's the Ten Commandments. Why do you shun the eternal law of God?

>Our God has a face and He looks exactly like Jesus Christ because our God is Jesus Christ

Then you must surely agree images of Jesus Christ are strictly illicit, since God said "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

>>760354

Icons as we in the Orthodox Church use them are perfectly in line with all of the commandments of God. http://www.stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/fr-ricks-sermons/no-graven-images

>>760354

God had not made himself a visible physical body before the incarnation. Since he took on a physical body, we can depict him in his life and salviffic actions in order to point towards the worship of the invisible. Do you worship your mirror or your family photo album? No, because you know those things point to a person in reality, and pale in comparison to the real thing.

>>760359

As we've seen, no they aren't.

>>760360

>God had not made himself a visible physical body before the incarnation.

Maybe not strictly speaking physical in the sense you and I are physical, but there were certainly visible theophanies before the incarnation.

>Since he took on a physical body, we can depict him in his life and salviffic actions in order to point towards the worship of the invisible

That's exactly the problem. You're creating these images to direct worship towards, it's superstitious and idolatrous. We have no certain and precise knowledge of what Christ looked like, so any image is a misrepresentation, which causes false worship.

>Do you worship your mirror or your family photo album?

No, and I also don't use them "in order to point towards the worship of the invisible". Do you see the fundamental difference between a religious image and a secular image?

>>760370

>just smash Michaelangelo's Pietà bro, trust me

>>760404

The Ten Commandments are not "ceremonial". You don't get to worship other gods or murder or steal just because we live in the new covenant.

>>761422

I'm unsure and uncomfortable about them. I haven't studied them much though, I understand they're relatively rare right?

>>761422

Personally I'm unsure about it, I've yet to look at the theological reasons why depicting the Father is wrong.

>>760330

Underrated

>>761464

The theological argument is generally that the Father is too transcendent to depict, the Father is knowable only by knowing the Son, so it's inappropriate to anthropomorphize the Father. There's also an argument that it gives the wrong impression and plays into atheistic ideas about the Father being an old beaded man in the sky rather than the spiritual foundation that gives rise to physical reality.

Personally I don't think it's heretical, but it shouldn't be encouraged. I own the trinity icon on the left there and I quite like it to remind me that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven. I understand it's only a symbolic representation, but less theologically knowledgeable people might take it to mean that the Father really is a Father in human form and not a being of spirit.

>>760354

>>760412

Who needs the Ten Commandments of Moses when we have the Two Commandments of Jesus?

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:36-40

>>761528

You should try opening the Bible.

>>761422

I feel like it anthropromorphises too much and could push people to misunderstandings. Depicting Christ is fine of course, because he is God as a man, so you depict the man, and you've depicted God. Depicting the Holy Spirit as a dove is also probably fine since scripture refers to the Holy Spirit decending as a dove. However, The Father has no such depictions in scripture. We may be tempted to imagine The Father as the old man depicted, but that's all it is, imagination. It has no grounding in scripture or tradition. We may be tempted to anthropromorphise God, but God anthropromorphised is just Christ.

>>761528

The four evangelists have common symbols in iconography. The winged lion represents Saint Mark and the winged bull represents Saint Luke

>>761574

Well shit I feel stupid now. Thanks anon.

>>761570

>We may be tempted to anthropromorphise God

The problem is scripture actually does that a lot. How many times is God described in terms of human features? Stretching out his hand against Egypt, putting inequities before his face, asking the Lord to incline his ear, etc. It's strange to claim that images that anthropomorphise God are inappropriate when scripture is constantly describing the Father in terms of human features.

>>761422

>Who has seen me has seen the Father.

We have seen the image of the Father in Christ, so we can only depict the Father as an older version of the Son.

>>761427

I feel thst why slightly also, however, I think they can serve a useful purpose, and you’ll know in yourself if that purpose is a good one or not. For instance, because of your question, and my (and I think many others) feelings at first, probably it would appear sacrilegious and point the thoughts opposite from the thoughts of God, which would be the opposite of its intended effect. However, I think actually that might partly be exactly its intended effect, prompting you by looking st it to try and seek out how to resolve the discrepancy and issue you have , exactly, and to help prompt your thoughts to think about he trying and epiphany and help prompt you to try and get a more firm understanding of the tribe to resolve the issues there. I’m not saying that I have them resolved , not at all, and in fact that’s why I might possibly find it spiritually productive having one nearby to sort of meditate on all the issues there more often. I’m sure the meditation of the trinity would be sort of induced , and that has to be somewhat helpful. But, maybe not a good one for the office or the family room or something if people will see it and then misunderstand judge. And then I think personally I’d probably take that one down after I think it’s fully served whatever purpose i thought it might have for me at the time. Maybe okay if you live alone or you’re confident enough in God as God actually is, (which is obviously not what’s being represented there because obviously)…and you want to help sort of prompt some attempt within yourself to start working through some of the trimier and deeper issues involved.

I also partly think , in general, one’s that DO prompt some type of emotional in you for some reason or some type of thing that you think is NOT compatible with the faith , or something , can actually be some of the most spiritually productive and helpful ones of all , because imo the whole point really is to not only help point your thoughts in better directions , but also, and on a more real level, I think, to gain understanding and wisdom , and if you already are 100% certain you will gain absolutely zero additional wisdom and 100% confident that will point your thoughts in wrong directions (or those of others) then maybe not.

So I think anyway I think maybe sometimes. Personally I think I’m not ready to start contemplating things that deep just yet, I have too many other issues I need to fix and that’s not something thst super pressingly needs to get resolved for me just at the moment. I think maybe only for if you’re old and wise in the faith and confident enough to know that you are being called to contemplate things like heaven and the inner workings of the trinity. Maybe it’s a good one for the super advanced monks 1300 years ago in a closed off section of the monastery or something. For me, I’m satisfied right now leaving much of the super precise mystical inner workings of all of that as a mystery, and it will be revealed to me in due course if I’m ready to start thinking about things like that.

>>761727

>he trying

bad typo. Should read: “trinity”

>>761574

Actually according to Western tradition the lion is St. Matthew since in his gospel we see Christ as King and its all about the messianic kingdom. And the lion is the King of the animals.

>>761422

The icon to the left is "wrong", both because it depicts the Father and because it depicts the Holy Spirit as a dove (when this can oly be done in very specific situations).

The icon to the right is an icon of Jesus. See the halo, and of course the citation from Revelation (the Alpha and the Omega). It "points" toward the Father, because the vision of Daniel clearly intends for the Ancient of Days to represent the Father, but because the Father cannot be "seen" (only described anthropomorphically at best, but Daniel did "see" a person), Orthodox tradition identifies the Ancient of Days with the Son anyway.

>>760078

Pardon my ignorance, aren't images depicting Jesus sacrilegious?

>>765431

>t "points" toward the Father, because the vision of Daniel clearly intends for the Ancient of Days to represent the Father, but because the Father cannot be "seen" (only described anthropomorphically at best, but Daniel did "see" a person), Orthodox tradition identifies the Ancient of Days with the Son anyway.

But the left hand one identifies the right hand figure as the ancient of days as well. The idea that the ancient of days is just an elderly Jesus seems like a bit of a legal workaround to depict the Father.

>>765542

Ok thanks for clarifying

>>765547

You are welcome friend. God bless ya.

My favorite icon is the one on my smart phone that opens up God's preserved and perfect KJV.