/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Are you saying that all graven images of Jesus are idols? Or would you say that a cross only on a necklace is also idolatry?

>>4528

Wearing a crucifix on the outside to try to show extra piety, I agree, is inappropriate. Nevertheless I see no issue with wearing on under your clothing as a personal reminder/memento and letting your behavior speak for itself.

>>4528

>the cross is Idol

Your notion of "idol" is not Biblical

>>4531

Crucifixes are strictly illicit because they are images of God, which is forbidden

There's literally nothing wrong with wearing a crucifix. If anything it's a demonstration you don't view it as an idol

>>4534

What about just crosses, with no image of a crucified Christ on them?

>>4534

>they are images of God

They are not. Is the cross a material object? Yes. Is Jesus a human, born in time by a woman? Yes.

>>4541

>What about crosses with no image of a crucified Christ

Of course they are ok, but images of Christ are also ok because the Son of God became man, and lived among us and we saw his glory. (John 1:14)

>>4534

>images of God, which is forbidden

lol we /islam/ now

>>4557

images scare away angels especially if its of a dog.

>>4571

Post this

>>4541

There's no image of God in a simple cross, is there?

>>4548

Is Jesus Christ God in the flesh?

>>4598

>Is Jesus Christ God in the flesh?

He is not God clothed in flesh. He is God who "became flesh". (John 1:14)

"No one has seen God at any time" (John 1:18a), therefore no images of God are possible. But the one and only Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him (John 1:18b) because he "became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We beheld his glory, glory as a Father’s only-begotten son, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

"Every spirit who does not confess Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh is not from God, and this is the spirit of the Antichrist which you have heard is coming, and is already in the world." (1 John 4:3) Anyone who denies the possibility to make images of Jesus Christ denies him becoming a flesh and this is the spirit of the Antichrist.

Call me a brainlet but not wearing the crucifix seems like hiding my Christian faith from the secular world, and that feels cowardly and wrong

>>4636

You're not a brainlet but that logic doesn't follow. Not wearing an item isn't hiding your christianity.

>>4602

>He is not God clothed in flesh

He absolutely is, God did not become flesh in such wise that divinity was transmuted into humanity, but that the Word made His tabernacle amongst us. If God indeed became flesh according to His divinity, then images of His person should be even more illicit.

>Anyone who denies the possibility to make images of Jesus Christ denies him becoming a flesh

To the contrary, justification of His images on the basis of the incarnation reflect a Nestorian christology and to make His image, and call it anything less than an image of the true God (which is strictly forbidden, according to Deuteronomy 4:15-19, lest the glory of God be denigrated, and us be given to idolatry), is to deny that the Son of Man is truly God in the flesh, and to separate the man from the God as really distinct persons isolated from one another.

>>4715

>God did not become flesh in such wise that divinity was transmuted into humanity

Yes.

>but that the Word made His tabernacle amongst us.

To claim that the human form of Jesus Christ is merely clothing or tabernacle for his divinity and nothing more is the hardest form of monophysitism, much harder than the current Oriental Orthodox.

In various places in the Bible Jesus Christ is referred to as seed of Abraham, seed of David, son of a virgin, son of man. He was hungry, thirsty, weary, he slept, he had tears for his dead friend, he suffered on the cross. The Word of God truly became man like us, not only imaginary but in reality. We must not try to correct the words of God "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". (John 1:14) He is complete and perfect in his divine nature but also complete and perfect in his human nature, both natures without loss.

> to make His image, and call it anything less than an image of the true God, is to deny that the Son of Man is truly God in the flesh

By this logic one can say that to see him and to call this seeing anything less than seeing of the true God is to deny that Jesus Christ is truly God in the flesh. Clearly he was seen both before and after his resurrection. And what you can see, you can paint. No one has seen God at any time but we saw the incarnated Word of God.

>Nestorian christology, separating the man from the God as really distinct persons isolated from one another

We recognize two natures of Christ, not two persons. His two natures are united but not mixed one into another. We can say that the second person of the Trinity became man (for example in the Nicene creed) but we can not say that God became man. We can say that the second person of the Trinity suffered on the cross because Jesus Christ suffered on the cross but we can not say that God suffered on the cross. Similarly, we can see the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God and the Word of God because we can see Jesus Christ but we can not say that we can see God.

>>4720

>To claim that the human form of Jesus Christ is merely clothing

Nobody claimed that it is 'mere' clothing, but the language of saying that God was clothed in flesh has been established orthodox terminology since before Milvian Bridge. God hid His glory behind a veil of flesh, this is simple biblical fact.

>By this logic one can say that to see him and to call this seeing anything less than seeing of the true God is to deny that Jesus Christ is truly God in the flesh

Indeed

>And what you can see, you can paint

The practice of making divine images was like many errors of the medieval church caused by growing ignorance of and disinterest in the Old Testament. You see, the incarnation was by no means the first theophany. There are many times in the Old Testament, indeed even before Moses forbid them from depicting God, when God appeared to men in a visible form, either through a vision or in person. For example, I will remind you that Abraham was visited by God and two angels who informed him personally of Sodom's destruction, and the same man was with Melchizedek. Yet, Moses said this

<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.

This would seem to be fatal to the iconophile position. Rather than invisibility merely being the reason why no images are permitted, it seems to be the reverse, namely that no image was seen to keep the Israelites from having a reference for depiction. I will remind you again that according to the same man who spoke these words, men had seen God multiple times. If it is argued that God was not physical and tangible during those appearances, I reply that the metric given is not physicality but visibility. Besides that, we are expected to fall down in worship of God whether He appears by vision or in reality. Since the explanation of the command is that men would be led to worship that which is not God if it were associated with God, there is no reason why it cannot be applied to images of Jesus Christ, since we worship Him as God.

>No one has seen God at any time

Specifically, God the Father. Point being that every sighting of God was none other than the preincarnate Son of God. "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."

>We recognize two natures of Christ, not two persons

Well that's all well and good, but it matters much more what you believe, and what you believe is discerned by how you talk about what you believe, not by what you say you believe. If Jesus Christ and God the Son are one and the same, then an image of Jesus Christ is an image of God the Son.

>we can not say that God became man

Ignoring the fact that you already did say that, we can and must say it if He is God in Himself.

>we can not say that God suffered on the cross

We can say that if we mean that God suffered according to His human nature. What's next, we can not say that God was born of woman?

>we can not say that we can see God

Then we are still in our sins.

>>4534

What is this islam

>>4727

Stop imagining the biblical verses the next time you read. Dont even form any images in the mind.

>>4755

>It is one thing to say that God was clothed in flesh

That is the only thing anyone in this thread has said.

>God the Son did not came merely clothed in flesh but he became that flesh

It is one thing to say that the Word became flesh, but to add specificity by saying that God became that flesh makes its natural meaning that of transmutation. God did not become that flesh, but took on that flesh.

>So on one hand we have Ap. John saying that "no one has seen God at any time" and on the other hand we have several visions of God in the Old Testament. How can we resolve this apparent contradiction?

You say that as if I did not already answer that question

>God the Son, however, can be seen

This is a misrepresentation. I never said that the Father is an invisible God and the Son a visible one, but that the Son had appeared before men whereas the Father did not. If you maintain that this is polytheistic even so, and that the Son could not appear without the Father also appearing or without them being different gods, then I ask how it is that the Son became flesh and walked among us, but the Father did not?

>Just as when we see the light of the sun we can rightfully say that we see the sun

I would say that if a man could not distinguish between sunlight and the sun itself, that man is a lunatic. The light cast upon the earth is not the sun. You can look at the sun itself directly, but I recommend you do not for long unless you wish to go blind.

It is not that God has any proper form which can be seen. Indeed, the appearances of God under the old law are inconsistent, precisely because God is properly formless. The theophanies under the old law were just as the Docetists supposed the incarnation was, immaterial, but visible and quasi-physical. But that they were improper does not make them any less legitimate forms of God than the incarnation.

>they saw a man

And that man was God. They saw the very person of God, they worshipped Him as God, they called Him their God. And yet you dare to claim that His likeness is not the likeness of God.

>Producing a visible human image is just a normal human activity, one that all people have

I am not doing anything for anyone to see me, because I am visible by nature. When you see a man, you do not see an image of his body, you see his proper form.

>and continues by listing anything one can imagine as God on the ground, in the air, in the water or in the heavens

Exactly. This is an exhaustive prohibition because it is so great a sin to do it under any circumstances.

>God is unimaginable, not only by material picture, but even in our mind

Also agreed. In fact, Augustine forbid the people not only from painting any image of God, but even from forming one in their minds.

>Men would be led to worship that which is not God if they wrongly assumed it to be God (or image of God).

And since pictures of Jesus are images of our God the people would be led to their worship. Thank you, for making my point.

>The images of Jesus Christ are images of God the Son, they, however, are not images of God (that is, they are not images of his Godhead).

And since I have already clearly established that the point of the commandment is not that the divine nature itself is forbidden from being depicted but merely God in any way, shape or form, this is irrelevant. I will add however that it is also false. There is an icon which is famous and old which is intended to depict the hypostatic union.

>you are expected to fall down in worship of God whenever you see such an icon.

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.

>God wasn't born of a woman

That you people call yourselves the Orthodox is a joke

>Which is why the Orthodox always call her mother of God.

Surely an error if He cannot simply be called God.

>>4762

>>4762

>make the entire cultus be a likeness of heaven

>make it such that later Second Temple Jews see the temple as a type of the universe, heaven and the Garden of Eden

>focus on visual covenantal signs to rectify covenant

>literally allowed the core site of cultus be filled with paintings of plants, 3d statues of bulls and angels, even the Ark which is an image of God's throne

>visual language is also used in both NT and OT

That is stupid. Also Augustine's position is just following the Neoplatonists of his day who agree that an image wont be accurate and one shouldnt visualize it. Yet, they accept the symbolic value of art to convey meaning which is practically what Images do. Convey symbolic meaning in image form.

Augustine's position also contradicts Paul, Revelations and Hebrews all of which happily use language that provoke word images of God in the mind. Galatians 3 is a clear example of this. If word images which are seen as images are allowed, then why is it wrong when they are depicted outside the mind? Both are already visual objects and comprehended as such to begin with

>>4762

>It is one thing to say that the Word became flesh, but to add specificity by saying that God became that flesh makes its natural meaning that of transmutation. God did not become that flesh, but took on that flesh

Except the flesh is united to God and is even deifed by the Divine nature. People who seen God in flesh, sees God for real. It isnt some other thing or some sort of hologram. It is God right there. Because God is actually seen as a human person, he can be depicted and it doesnt oppose the Ten Commandments. Why? Because it is accurate insofar as it conveys the fact that God Incarnated contra the warnings of that Commandment against attributing false forms to God who is invisible because he hasnt Incarnated.

>I would say that if a man could not distinguish between sunlight and the sun itself, that man is a lunatic.

Except to see the sun, the light have to be seen. Only by the light, the sun can be seen. There is a reason why so many early fathers who oppose Protestantism and you so they are just heretics by your logic, says that when one sees Jesus one actually sees the Father. Because that is the only way to see him. So this point is utterly stupid. The light is required to even behold the sun. Even staring directly is only possible because of the light!

>And that man was God. They saw the very person of God, they worshipped Him as God, they called Him their God. And yet you dare to claim that His likeness is not the likeness of God

They certainly did not see God's Essence for sure. So in that sense that anon is correct. But they truly saw God because by seeing the Son, one sees also the Father as the Son is the perfect Image of the Father. However they cannot see God's essence or his omnipresence. They cannot see his glorified nature too unless God chooses to do so, like at Tabor.

>I am not doing anything for anyone to see me, because I am visible by nature. When you see a man, you do not see an image of his body, you see his proper form.

Except the body is still something visually comprehended. Just as God in the Flesh or Theopanies is. Even worse, that anon never said when one sees a person, it is just "an image of his body", he says to make such images is true which happens via memory. The disciples who saw Christ and after the event, would create literally an image in the mind each time they recall the event. Like they do when writing it down. That is still a type of image as in the ancient world, memory is seen as visual in nature.

>And since pictures of Jesus are images of our God the people would be led to their worship. Thank you, for making my point.

Except people prostrated before the Ark in the OT. It isnt God yet we see it is where God's presence is manifested in a more special manner but the object isnt God. All reverence made to the object or facing it is simply due to honouring God, not worshipping the object. The same reason why a flag is saluted today. Even Christians in Augustine's time knew this hence why honouring imperial images is a thing.

>Also agreed. In fact, Augustine forbid the people not only from painting any image of God, but even from forming one in their minds.

Except he doesnt. He only speak lowly of images as Neoplatonists do. Yet Neoplatonists dont ask temples to destroy statues because images still serve a role to convey meaning. Something also part of Augustine's own logic on Sacraments which are likenesses of things. Augustine didnt pull this definition out of thin air. He got it from the centuries of Christians who saw the Eucharist as literally an image of the passion.

If your logic is true then Augustine is incoherent for using the Eucharist as an illustration of Christ's sacrificial death. In fact that event cannot even be seen as a reenactment of the Last Supper at all because doing so brings out a performative Icon and Image for all to see, and one even more far removed from what actually happened.

>>4771

It's pretty clear that you're probably that autistic Pole that used to post on /christian/ all the time given your use of gross irrelevancies, already refuted arguments, and poor English grammar, so I don't want to give the impression that I'll be engaging you in a lengthy discussion as I have little desire to get dragged down into that marsh, but I am going to make a response to what you said here for clarification's sake, and then God willing I will ignore whatever your response might be.

>allowed the core site of cultus be filled with paintings of plants, 3d statues of bulls and angels, even the Ark which is an image of God's throne

Not only did He allow it, He commanded it. You will note that absent from those things is an image of His very self, which is all that's been discussed, so this is irrelevant. I have made no objection to making an image of a creature, there is no law against that.

>Augustine's position also contradicts Paul, Revelations and Hebrews

Interesting how you concede this is Augustine's position here and then in your next post deny that it is.

>word images of God in the mind

Now I'll be honest, I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. It wouldn't make sense for it to be the metaphorical anthropomorphisms of God, since there is none in Galatians 3, so is this the idea that simply the written word 'God' is an image of God? If so then there is no need to make a refutation since that in particular is such a weak sophism that all one needs to know it is false is their wits about them, and without that nobody can be convinced that it is false.

>>4772

>Except the flesh is united to God and is even deifed by the Divine nature. People who seen God in flesh, sees God for real. It isnt some other thing or some sort of hologram. It is God right there.

Yes and that has been precisely my point, since Jesus Christ is God in the flesh prohibitions of divine images apply to Him.

>Because it is accurate insofar as it conveys the fact that God Incarnated contra the warnings of that Commandment against attributing false forms to God who is invisible because he hasnt Incarnated.

Again, the prohibition is not against misrepresentations, but all images whatsoever. There had been theophanies when the command was given, and though they were improper representations of the divine person, they were not false, yet it was still just as forbidden to depict them.

Properly, all depictions of God are misrepresentations, since we cannot comprehend the divine majesty. Even the God-man shone with glory, yet we could not help but misrepresent even just His face, since we do not know it.

>However they cannot see God's essence or his omnipresence.

So what? What have I said that gave you the impression my argument is that they saw God's essence or that images of Jesus are images of the divine essence?

>Even worse, that anon never said when one sees a person, it is just "an image of his body", he says to make such images is true which happens via memory

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say here because this sentence is particularly broken, but I think you're saying his argument was they made an image in the mind every time they remembered Him, which is false because he made no mention of memory or thought, he was talking about actual sight. But it is also a false argument, since they were not making false images if they were true memories of His genuine person.

>Except people prostrated before the Ark in the OT

No sir, they prostrated before the glorious presence of God within the Ark, the Ark just happened to be there. It would be strictly forbidden to give proskynesis to an object.

>He got it from the centuries of Christians who saw the Eucharist as literally an image of the passion.

>If your logic is true then Augustine is incoherent for using the Eucharist as an illustration of Christ's sacrificial death

The Eucharist is not a human depiction of God.

>>4785

Iconoclast strawman of Iconophile

Except of course this is a strawman because most Iconophiles accept that the Formless cannot be made into an image. The point here is against you as it shows visual images and even cultic objects are used as the central nexus of the cultus. Your own eisegesis of the Commandment against Images also demands the need to eliminate all forms of visual representations. Why? Because the first and second statements there could easily be seen as two different statements on images, nothing of likenesses in heaven and earth and you will not bow down and worship those things. Interpreting the commands as you do makes God set up an entire cultus antithetical to this. Period.

>Interesting how you concede this is Augustine's position here and then in your next post deny that it is.

Not an argument. My point is to take Augustine's own background and thought into account. Note that I also explained why this is false, because of NT use of the visual in relation to God. Revelations literally provide visual description of Christ which naturally invokes the visual representation in the mind. Thus this opposes Augustine saying one cannot mentally visualize God, unless he means God's essence or the Father or that beyond Scriptural signs.

Why Iconoclast anon is false on Theophanies, God using visual signs

This logic entails God as inconsistent with himself for literally asking Israelites to appeal to what they seen visually(which is a representation of the mind). In fact even the theophanies are already turned into representations by the mere fact that they are described and hence naturally lends to the seeing in the mind's eye, in the form of visual imagery which is still a representation. So by your logic, each time anyone reads about the Theophanies and because of reading, forms an imagination of them in the mind, he is contradicting the first commandment. This is why your view is silly and makes God silly. The only way to harmonize this with what God does and the strong visual element of Jewish cult is to see that the Commandment against Images is made against having false representations of God. This makes sense when Israel's neighbours practically all share the view that their gods are in some way present in the idols and symbols of the gods. The fact this is given after the Israelites made a calf and worshipped it thinking that is the God that freed them further reinforces this notion. Otherwise you simply end up telling people that they must read the Bible without even thinking about it because once thinking starts, the representational images form in the mind. Even worse is that God often uses visual reminders as assurance. Circumsicion and the use of the rainbow to Noah for instance, visual signs used to rectify covenant. Makes no sense if the Commandment forbids representing things of heaven and earth and the visual orientation of the Jewish cultus.

Iconoclast ignorance of Galatians

Yes because it shows you havent done your research. Douglas Moo, a Calvinist says Galatians 3 refers to Paul using vivid word pictures in preaching the Gospel, which again serves my point. If images are wrong, why did the Apostle preached in such a way that images will be formed and impressed in the minds of his audience? This also shows you have no familiarity with Galatians 3 because at the beginning it says they(the Galatians) saw Christ crucified!

Verse 1 states:

O  foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

So why did Paul do this? Doesnt he know that images of God, which Christ is, is wrong by the logic of the First Commandment?

Seeing Christ and yet not seeing God as Essence

That point illustrates the failure of your statement when you say that people who saw Jesus, saw God misses the basic point that people arent gonna see God's true omnipresence or essence but the person of Jesus who can perform miracles and transfigure his flesh. They are not seeing God as I see you in person. But yet they truly by seeing Christ, sees God inspite of limitations.

Memory images

An again an ignorance of how ancients view memory which is entirely visual in nature and even spatial as some rhetors actually say using locales to aid in memory is useful. And even worse what the Apostles wrote in the entire NT about Jesus' life are based on memories of their encounter with Christ which is what they are. By your logic, then it means the authors wrote it instantaneous with Christ's Incarnation on earth, which is silly. Even worse, saying the memories arent false images if they are of true encounters misses the point of the argument which is that the memories are representations of the past events experienced, which is what they are. They arent anametic as the Passover or Eucharist are. That anon says we make images of a person. Why? Because whenever we recall past experience, we are only looking at images removed from the past experience itself!

Ark

Again ignoring my point about God's presence there which I explicitly mentioned. Nice strawman. Even when God's presence is there in a special manner than general omnipotence as I said, the Ark is still reverenced and is treated as an object to be respected due to its special cultic role. The respect of that object is not seen as worship of the object but of God. Saluting a flag isnt honouring the flag but the state.

Eucharist

Except, people preside over it and people are shown by it, Christ's passion by means of those symbols. As long as the Eucharist is visual representation, my point is proven again. Why God commands such things contrary to his own commandment?

>>4788

It would seem God was not willing that I should not reply

>Iconoclast strawman of Iconophile

Now, as much as I would just love to respond to this, you seem to be ranting at nothing, so I have nothing to say.

>Revelations literally provide visual description of Christ which naturally invokes the visual representation in the mind

You think John intended us to literally think of Christ as a dead lamb with seven horns and seven eyes?

>In fact even the theophanies are already turned into representations by the mere fact that they are described and hence naturally lends to the seeing in the mind's eye, in the form of visual imagery which is still a representation

This logic seems to be the heart and soul of your entire defense, but it is strange, broken, and unnatural. Mere description of a thing is not the creation of an image of that thing, and very few people on this earth would say it is. If a description conjures a mental image, then it is not that your mind went a-wandering and formed an image to tie down whatever it is, it is not derived from within, rather it is formed from something real and external. So it is not that you yourself create an image, you simply receive a description.

But now that the faulty logic has been dealt with, I think this particular application of it is extremely significant. Since, then, your position is that the preincarnate theophanies were true appearances of God, and since your position is that God wishes us to make mental images of them, and since your position is this serves as a justification for making depictions of God, would not your position then logically be that depictions of God were absolutely licit and completely permitted prior to the incarnation of Jesus Christ?

>So by your logic, each time anyone reads about the Theophanies and because of reading, forms an imagination of them in the mind, he is contradicting the first commandment

No anon, that was not my logic, it was yours.

>the strong visual element of Jewish cult

It's interesting how human traditions blind a man. You can go on and on about how visual old covenant Christianity was, but when I open my bible I don't find a religion that is eminently visual and physical, I find Psalm 115:2-8 and Isaiah 44:12-20, because these saints believed in a transcendent God who does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is He worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything.

>Otherwise you simply end up telling people that they must read the Bible without even thinking about it because once thinking starts, the representational images form in the mind. Even worse is that God often uses visual reminders as assurance. Circumsicion and the use of the rainbow to Noah for instance, visual signs used to rectify covenant.

I will remind you once again that we have been talking only of images of God. This is a red herring.

>Douglas Moo, a Calvinist says Galatians 3 refers to Paul using vivid word pictures

Somehow, I doubt he said those words.

>This also shows you have no familiarity with Galatians 3 because at the beginning it says they(the Galatians) saw Christ crucified!

No, I think it just shows that you are a fool. It gives us no description of Christ to consider. It doesn't even say they saw Christ crucified, it says that Christ crucified was preached to them.

>They are not seeing God as I see you in person

They saw God in person if Jesus Christ is God

>>4789

>An again an ignorance of how ancients view memory which is entirely visual in nature

No I don't that's how ancients view memory I think that's simply how memory is.

>By your logic, then it means the authors wrote it instantaneous with Christ's Incarnation on earth

Do I even need to reply to such gross absurdity?

>the memories are representations of the past events experienced

They are recollections, not representations.

>The respect of that object is not seen as worship of the object but of God

I would like you to show me one instance where the Ark is glorified in and of itself.

>Except, people preside over it and people are shown by it, Christ's passion by means of those symbols. As long as the Eucharist is visual representation, my point is proven again. Why God commands such things contrary to his own commandment?

Since the last time I addressed this, the Eucharist has still not become a human depiction of God and this is therefore still irrelevant, and it still won't be the next time you make this fallacious argument. This is a red herring and from here on out it will be ignored.

>>4790

>Now, as much as I would just love to respond to this, you seem to be ranting at nothing, so I have nothing to say.

Except you made a strawman by thinking all imagery or cultic objects in the Old Testament sanctioned by God are not of images of God's very self, which Iconophiles literally accept. Anyone who done their homework on this knows Iconophiles only allow images of God the Son or the Spirit as a dove in terms of how God should be depicted instead of the Father. Because those are tangible forms which are truly them and not the Formlessness of Yahweh in the Old Testament where the Son and the Spirit both have not incarnated or descended in the form of a dove. Even John of Damascus denies that images of the Father be made, because the Father is not the one who took on flesh and hence a tangible form.

>You think John intended us to literally think of Christ as a dead lamb with seven horns and seven eyes?

Except that is not even the only imagery John uses to describe Christ. Anyone who read Revelations knows there are other visions seen where Christ is more closer to his humanity. For instance the 1st chapter of Revelations itself,

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Why does John provide us with these visual descriptors had he not want us to visualise Christ who is God in any manner at all? That only provoke readers to imagine this. Scholars recognise John's use of Ekphrasis for a reason, because of visual descriptions like these to stick in the minds of readers.

>Mere description of a thing is not the creation of an image of that thing, and very few people on this earth would say it is. If a description conjures a mental image, then it is not that your mind went a-wandering and formed an image to tie down whatever it is, it is not derived from within, rather it is formed from something real and external. So it is not that you yourself create an image, you simply receive a description.

This is literally false. Why? Because descriptions are by nature supposed to form mental images in the people who read them. In the ancient world this basic fact is recognised. Even Augustine recognises this in his description of how memory works where mental images formed by sensory impressions are stored in a database of sorts. Practically how ancients viewed memory. The mental image formed from information is still a likeness of what actually happened and not the actual thing or event that happened. Basic logic tells us this and here you missed it, giving excuses such as "it being from something real and external", an image is still created from somewhere distinct from the reality the descriptors convey, which the descriptors themselves are distinct from to begin with. There is a reason why to Plato, a painting of a painting of a bed is twice removed from the original bed! Because it is an image of an image

>our position is that the preincarnate theophanies were true appearances of God, and since your position is that God wishes us to make mental images of them, and since your position is this serves as a justification for making depictions of God, would not your position then logically be that depictions of God were absolutely licit and completely permitted prior to the incarnation of Jesus Christ?

Except, I have not said that, only that theophanies given how they are described, naturally lend themselves to the creation of mental images of them. A mental image is still an image made. It's only internalized mentally rather than being external in nature.This means even in the Old Covenant, representations of Yahweh are still there but there is a key distinguishing factor from representing Form or trying to accurately depict them, the theophanies are seen as symbolic and expressive of the fact that Yahweh has no one set tangible form, parallel to Ezekiel and Hosea where Yahweh is depicted in different manners, yet it is still Yahweh who is described. This literally follows a key aspect of Iconophile logic, symbols used to grasp the Divine. This is the nature of OT representation which are aids to contemplate an unknowable and show God as not some man or alike the neighbouring gods of the Ancient Near East.

>>4790

>No anon, that was not my logic, it was yours.

Wrong, That is your logic by taking the First of the Ten Commandment against Images as one that forbids any image or representation of God, but the command is explicit that anything in the heavens above and the waters below are included in the things people cannot make images of and bow down to said images. Saying that means no idols or no making an image and worshipping it, doesnt contradict Iconophile logic which agrees with that notion because God havent incarnated, he cannot be depicted in that way and visual indicators for readers are multifaceted to reinforce this notion!

>It's interesting how human traditions blind a man. You can go on and on about how visual old covenant Christianity was, but when I open my bible I don't find a religion that is eminently visual and physical, I find Psalm 115:2-8 and Isaiah 44:12-20, because these saints believed in a transcendent God who does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is He worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything.

Except, even Second Temple Jews who follow liturgical worship and accept the validity of sacrifices literally accept that God dont dwell in temples made with hands or needs anything. In fact this is a moot point because as Iconophiles long ago before the Iconoclast controversy have figured out and noted, God puts on words and symbols so that people who cannot comprehend him can come to him. People like Philo exemplify this. It is simply you projecting what you want into the text, ignoring the visual nature of circumcision which is a covenantal sign of God's promise such as in Genesis 9:12-17 where God uses a rainbow as a covenant sign to Noah that he will not flood the world again. A visual sign isnt used to represent God here, but it is used as means of rectifying and 'signing' that promise, essentially a visual signature for Noah to see.

In Exodus, Moses staff turning into a snake in Pharaoh's court is a visual warning and reminder to Pharaoh and to Moses, a sign that he can trust God. An external visual sign is used to warn and assure of God's power and promises. Verses like Exodus 19:4-6 show how God uses visual reminders to the Israelites to direct them to see what he done for them at Egypt to set them free from bondage. These may not be images of God, but they are images that testify to God's character and promise. They are still images that are meant to show something of who God is which is why they are relevant here contra to your claims about this being a strawman. Why? Because like it or not, God uses visual images to show forth his character which is ironically for you, akin to the basic view of Iconophile essence-energies distinction, knowing God's character through what he done is how one knows God which is what Icons as visual exegesis does

Your own claim that mention of these sorts of images are "red herring" is also moot because of the mere virtue of your eisegesis of the 1st Commandment which says no images or likenesses of anything in the heavens above or the waters below. It is clear there are no images of God or at least concrete images of him in the way of other ancient near east cultures but even a representation made to show character is still giving us a literal look at God's strength and character by visual means which is ironic considering that no images or likeness of him should ever be considered.

Hence the only way to account for that is to see it as an injunction against attributing mistaken forms to Yahweh and not a command that denies any representations. Otherwise the Ark, the Cherubim throne, the covenantal signs, the theophanies described are all silly as they bring to mind representations of Yahweh even if they arent meant as conveying his essence or form

>>4790

From Moo's own words in his commentary on Galatians:

>The second part of the verse justifies Paul’s claim that the Galatians are being foolish: it was before their “very eyes” that “Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” Several modern English versions turn this into a new sentence (NIV, NRSV, ESV, NET, CEB), but it is really a continuation of the question from the beginning of the verse (see NASB, RSV, HCSB). The combination κατ᾿ ὀφθαλμούς (kat’ ophthalmous, “before one’s eyes” [BDAG 744.2]) and προεγράφη (proegraphē, portray publicly) makes clear that Paul is thinking of an open and evident declaration of the crucifixion (for this meaning of προγράφω, see BDAG 867.2; the verb occurs in the NT elsewhere with the meaning “write beforehand” [Rom. 15:4; Eph. 3:3; Jude 4]). The visual imagery may pick up on the allusion to the “evil eye” earlier in the verse: the agitators may be trying to persuade the Galatians by means of the demonic device of the “evil eye”; but the Galatians, who have seen Christ’s cross with their own eyes, should know better. “This placard ought to have kept their eyes from wandering, and so to have acted as a charm” (Lightfoot 1881: 134). The reference is undoubtedly to Paul’s preaching about Christ among the Galatians: by means of vivid word pictures, Paul presented to them the central salvific reality of the cross of Christ (esp. see 1 Cor. 2:1–5). What is meant, then, is a “vivid verbal description” (LN 410.33.191; for the nuance of vividness in this verb, see Martyn 1997: 283). As he has just done in 2:21, Paul again invests the fact of the crucifixion with considerable significance. When truly appreciated, the cross of Christ, the manifestation of God’s wisdom, power, and grace, should rule out of court the kind of human-oriented law program that the agitators are perpetrating.-pages 181-182

>>4790

>No, I think it just shows that you are a fool. It gives us no description of Christ to consider. It doesn't even say they saw Christ crucified, it says that Christ crucified was preached to them.

Except the descriptions are given to the Galatians when Paul preached to them, aka his audience. He doesnt need to care about your politically correct feelings alien to the situation he have to deal with.

>They saw God in person if Jesus Christ is God

Irrelevant because people who saw Christ see God, but they dont see the Godhead or the Essence of God or his omnipresence.

>No I don't that's how ancients view memory I think that's simply how memory is.

Good, so memory is visual. That is a part of my argument as I will explain more as the next statement shows you did not even take this as it is.

>They are recollections, not representations.

A recollection of a past event is still a representation of the past event itself. Why? Because the memory of it being visual and even incorporating other senses are not the same thing as the event itself. Only a likeness. Hence it is a representation.

>I would like you to show me one instance where the Ark is glorified in and of itself.

Moot point, Icons are not venerated because it is wood or for their earthly nature but the meaning it represents, same with the reason for why the Ark receives reverence.

>Since the last time I addressed this, the Eucharist has still not become a human depiction of God and this is therefore still irrelevant, and it still won't be the next time you make this fallacious argument. This is a red herring and from here on out it will be ignored.

Except the Eucharist is, performed and enacted by people and people are required for it to actually take place. But even then, the Eucharist which is the central act of worship in the church is still a visual form of Christ's passion. So why is that instituted despite the command of no likenesses or representations of God?

Ignoring this only shows you incoherent like the Iconoclasts who fail to see how the entire logic of typology in their worldview applied to the liturgy and sacraments is what allows for Icons and makes those acts iconic in nature. They must bar them to be coherent yet they dont. Just like you here only unlike you, the Iconoclasts actually use the real presence consubstantial with the elements as a way to argue for why it can be a true Icon. But that definition of true Icon ignores all the other typological and iconic aspects of liturgy.

This is a red herring to bring in the Iconoclasts of the Byzantine empire here but I mention them to show just how you like them are incoherent.

>