Graven Images

2,288 Views | 91 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by jkag89
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:


Quote:

In their eyes, they were creating a statue of Yahweh, or whatever God brought them out of Egypt.
No, in their eyes they were worshiping some other man-made god. We know this because God knew their hearts and told us this. They were crediting a pagan god, one that they most likely worshiped in Egypt, for delivering.
Ok, could Israel have fashioned the idol in another way as to make the worship ok?
The issue was the object of their worship wasn't Yahweh. It was a pagan god. k2 isn't worshiping a pagan god when he kisses an icon of Christ.
That doesn't answer my question.
Yes, it does. The issue wasn't what the idol looked like. Golden calf, golden rabbit, golden ostrich poop...it was the object of worship. They weren't worshiping God. They were worshiping a god (or gods according to some version). Their hearts were directed somewhere other than the One who actually delivered them, and they credited other gods for that deliverance. The specific shape of the idol is irrelevant.
What makes this true is the fact that God cannot be represented in a golden calf, golden rabbit, golden ostrich poop. It's insulting to think that's possible.
Because God isn't any of those things. Jesus is a man. He took on flesh and bone. We know what men look like. The object of depicting Christ as a man is to depict God in the flesh. God is the object of the worship. By depicting God as a calf, you're depicting Him as something He isn't. That's not the case w/ Jesus.
What makes you think Israel was not directing their worship toward the God who delivered them out of Egypt? If you were an Israelite and Aaron told you "this is the God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt", you would object and say "no, that's not true because..."
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

By depicting God as a calf, you're depicting Him as something He isn't. That's not the case w/ Jesus.
How do you know this?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

swimmerbabe11 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

swimmerbabe11 said:

Are you against crucifixes too or just paintings too? Is an empty cross an idol?

Should a children's book with the feeding the 5000 only have a picture of baskets of fish?

What about the painting of the Last Supper?

I don't think it's idolatry until you start ascribing mystical properties in the item itself. We don't bow to the processional cross because of some power that the item has made of wood and bronze (i think) has, but because of what it represents. Same way cash is just a piece of paper or a police badge is just a piece of metal.
Yes to all. I'm against an empty cross for different reasons. Definitely children's books and last supper for the book/movie analogy. Children can understand a story read to them without the need for someone else's interpretation of the story.
You don't think pictures are good for teaching small children about Christ and understanding what was happening?

What about missionaries who have language barriers? Children with learning disabilities?

How about diagrams to explain Christogy? Are those verboten? A diagram is basically a logic image.
The same people needing an image of Christ to get over a language barrier conducts their entire service in Latin?? Give me a break. Children with learning disabilities? Example? Logic diagrams to explain Christology are ok.


FOR GOODNESS SAKE K2 ISN'T CATHOLIC. RETIRED ISN'T CATHOLIC. I'M NOT CATHOLIC. You aren't debating Catholics here!

Many Catholic churches don't even have latin mass anymore anyway. My churches have a processional cross, banners, stained glass, altar pieces that depict Christ, a cross at the front of the church.


Ask any special education teacher how important visual learning is. Heck, ask any teacher how important visual learning is.

Christ lived in a very different time than us. Say you got your way and no crosses and no crucifixes are anywhere. You are describing the death of Christ to a young child. Crucifixion really isn't a common punishment anymore and your child is confused about how Christ was killed. Can you draw a picture to explain?

Is this image ok? Where does the line get drawn if diagrams are okay? Diagrams are pictures with captions.



This one? That's made of words
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11 said:

This one? That's made of words

swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For the record, I have no idea what the words are, they could be total heresy
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

RetiredAg said:


Quote:

In their eyes, they were creating a statue of Yahweh, or whatever God brought them out of Egypt.
No, in their eyes they were worshiping some other man-made god. We know this because God knew their hearts and told us this. They were crediting a pagan god, one that they most likely worshiped in Egypt, for delivering.
Ok, could Israel have fashioned the idol in another way as to make the worship ok?
The issue was the object of their worship wasn't Yahweh. It was a pagan god. k2 isn't worshiping a pagan god when he kisses an icon of Christ.
That doesn't answer my question.
Yes, it does. The issue wasn't what the idol looked like. Golden calf, golden rabbit, golden ostrich poop...it was the object of worship. They weren't worshiping God. They were worshiping a god (or gods according to some version). Their hearts were directed somewhere other than the One who actually delivered them, and they credited other gods for that deliverance. The specific shape of the idol is irrelevant.
What makes this true is the fact that God cannot be represented in a golden calf, golden rabbit, golden ostrich poop. It's insulting to think that's possible.
Because God isn't any of those things. Jesus is a man. He took on flesh and bone. We know what men look like. The object of depicting Christ as a man is to depict God in the flesh. God is the object of the worship. By depicting God as a calf, you're depicting Him as something He isn't. That's not the case w/ Jesus.
What makes you think Israel was not directing their worship toward the God who delivered them out of Egypt? If you were an Israelite and Aaron told you "this is the God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt", you would object and say "no, that's not true because..."
What makes me think that? Because God said they were worshiping other gods. He knew their hearts and their motives.

And Aaron didn't say that. The people did: "and they said, "[b]This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."

The phrase "this is your god" is also translated in other versions as "these are your gods".
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Excellent questions!

Yes, we worship God in spirit and truth. But there is worship and there is veneration. Worship is reserved for God alone, as He is only known by His divine condescension to reveal Himself to us. God in Truth is utterly beyond comprehension, expression; He is ineffable and unknowable.

However, our mode of worship is not free-form for us to decide. Your statement implies that we have some kind of human-inspired ways that are acceptable to God. On the contrary, the form and structure of our worship is from Him. He tells us what is acceptable to Him. Holy Baptism, Holy Communion, the scriptures, all come from God. The OT gives us a pattern of worship (which includes images, just not images of the Divine).

The problem with the golden calf is very simple: God is not a calf. What objection can you make of depicting Christ Jesus as a man? He was made man. He really was a man, really and truly - fully God and Fully Man. Why would it be a sin to depict Him as He chose to reveal Himself to us?

The letter of the Synod of the 7th Ecuemnical explained it very clearly.

Quote:

...The sacred icons of our Lord Jesus Christ are to be had and retained, inasmuch as he was very man; also those which set forth what is historically narrated in the Gospels; and those which represent our undefiled Lady, the holy Mother of God; and likewise those of the Holy Angels (for they have manifested themselves in human form to those who were counted worthy of the vision of them), or of any of the Saints.

[We have also decreed] that the brave deeds of the Saints be portrayed on tablets and on the walls, and upon the sacred vessels and vestments, as has been the custom of the holy Catholic Church of God from ancient times; which custom was regarded as having the force of law in the teaching both of those holy leaders who lived in the first ages of the Church, and also of their successors our reverend Fathers.

[We have likewise decreed] that these images are to be reverenced (proskynein), that is, salutations are to be offered to them. The reason for using the word is, that it has a two-fold signification. For kynein in the old Greek tongue signifies both to salute and to kiss. And the preposition pros gives to it the additional idea of strong desire towards the subject; as for example, we have phero and prosphero, kyro and proskyro, and so also we have kyneo and proskyneo. Which last word implies salutation and strong love; for that which one loves he also reverences (proskynei) and what he reverences that he greatly loves, as the everyday custom, which we observe towards those we love, bears witness, and in which both ideas are practically illustrated when two friends meet together. The word is not only made use of by us, but we also find it set down in the Divine Scriptures by the ancients. For it is written in the histories of the Kings, "And David rose up and fell upon his face and did reverence to (prosekynise) Jonathan three times and kissed him" (1 Kings 20:41). And what is it that the Lord in the Gospel says concerning the Pharisees? They love the uppermost rooms at feasts and greetings (aspasmous) in the markets. It is evident that by greetings here, he means reverence (proskynisin) for the Pharisees being very high-minded and thinking themselves to be righteous were eager to be reverenced by all, but not [merely] to be kissed. For to receive salutations of this latter sort savored too much of lowly humility, and this was not to the Pharisees' liking. We have also the example of Paul the divine Apostle, as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates: "When we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto James, and all the presbyters were present. And when he had saluted (aspasamenos) them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry" (Acts 21:17-19). By the salutation here mentioned, the Apostle evidently intended to render that reverence of honor (timitikin proskynisin) which we show to one another, and of which he speaks when he says concerning Jacob, that he "reverenced (prosekynisen) the top of his staff" (Hebrews 11:21). With these examples agrees what Gregory surnamed Theologus says: Honor Bethlehem, and reverence (proskynison) the manger.

Now who of those rightly and sincerely understanding the Divine Scriptures, has ever supposed that these examples which we have cited speak of the worship in spirit (tis en pneumati latreias)? [Certainly no one has ever thought so] except perhaps some persons utterly bereft of sense and ignorant of all knowledge of the Scriptures and of the teaching of the Fathers. Surely Jacob did not adore (elatreusen) the top of his staff; and surely Gregory Theologus does not bid us to adore (latreuein) the manger? By no means.

Again, when offering salutations to the life-giving Cross, we together sing: We reverence (proskynomen), your cross, O Lord, and we also reverence (proskynomen) the spear which opened the life-giving side of your goodness. This is clearly but a salutation, and is so called, and its character is evinced by our touching the things mentioned with our lips. We grant that the word proskunisis is frequently found in the Divine Scriptures and in the writings of our learned and holy Fathers for the worship in spirit (epi tis en pneumati latreias), since, being a word of many significations, it may be used to express that kind of reverence which is service. As there is also the veneration of honor, love and fear. In this sense it is, that we venerate your glorious and most noble majesty [i.e., the Emperor to whom the letter was addressed -k2]. So also there is another veneration which comes of fear alone, thus Jacob venerated Esau. Then there is the veneration of gratitude, as Abraham reverenced the sons of Heth, for the field which he received from them for a burying place for Sarah his wife. And finally, those looking to obtain some gift, venerate those who are above them, as Jacob venerated Pharaoh. Therefore because this term has these many significations, the Divine Scriptures teaching us, You shall venerate the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve, says simply that veneration is to be given to God, but does not add the word only; for veneration being a word of wide meaning is an ambiguous term; but it goes on to say you shall serve (latreuseis) him only, for to God alone do we render latria [worship].

PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

For the record, I have no idea what the words are, they could be total heresy
My guess is that they're the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

The problem with the golden calf is very simple: God is not a calf. What objection can you make of depicting Christ Jesus as a man? He was made man. He really was a man, really and truly - fully God and Fully Man. Why would it be a sin to depict Him as He chose to reveal Himself to us?
Probably the crux of the matter. Jesus was not just "a man", he was the God-man. How do you depict that? It's a mystery, but let's have some artists have a crack at it? Even if you were to convince me that you could divorce his humanity from his divinity, and that you were only depicting his humanity, you said earlier that the icons were some metaphysical representation, not an image of what he looked like.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is literally the objection answered by the 7th ecumenical council. The opposing side said that you either divide his divinity from his humanity and become Nestorian or you make him to be one nature and become a Monophysite. But the council rejected this to say that we can image what He was - a man.

We denote His dual nature several ways in icons. Blue represents His humanity, red or purple His divinity. You'll note that on most saints icons they have blue covered by red showing they became divine through their Faith and salvation; for Christ, this is reversed - He was divine and became man.

Another point is Christ's halo frequently is depicted with the words for I AM, the existing one, the phrase from Exodus
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

FOR GOODNESS SAKE K2 ISN'T CATHOLIC. RETIRED ISN'T CATHOLIC. I'M NOT CATHOLIC. You aren't debating Catholics here!
Two reasons why Catholics may have not chimed in on Martin's initial offering on this thread -

First,even the most thick skulled of us Catholics eventually learns that there are certain topics in which those we are debating have their minds made up and will not even consider the Catholic view no matter how strong or persuasive the argument. This is one such topic.

Second. you, K2 and Retired are doing an excellent job
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:


First,even the most thick skulled of us Mary worshiping Catholics eventually learns that there are certain topics in which those we are debating have their minds made up and will not even consider the Catholic view no matter how strong or persuasive the argument. This is one such topic.
FIFY

Sorry, as a Protestant, I felt we may be getting to chummy.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes but why do you three have services in Latin? I feel like that hasn't been answered.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of course, to most Christ did not outwardly appear to be anything more than a man. St Paul tells us He took the form of a servant. If others had outwardly seen Him as God, surely they would have treated Him differently.

And yet one of the times that specifically is called to be shown in holy images is that of the Transfiguration on Mt Tabor. (We recently celebrated the Feast of the Transfiguration, so this is fresh in my mind).

It's an interesting icon exactly for the challenge you describe. How do you present a transfigured Christ? This is truly the time when we should be the most careful. Other times, to present him being baptized is ok. We have good descriptors - a man, in the Jordan, being baptized; the Holy Spirit descending as a dove. But how do you show a man being visibly transfigured to show His true self, as much as the human eye and mortal body can bear?

Here's a picture.


There's a lot of elements here but what is key to your objection (i.e., how do you display divinity?) is in the mandorla. This is an iconographic tool to depict His revealed majesty, glory, and divinity, while preserving the mystery of the godhead. It always accompanies Him in traditional icons of His Resurrection, Transfiguration, Ascension, the Dormition, and of Christ in Glory - because in these icons we show Him in his Glory, not Him as a man.

Mandorla is Italian for almond, and this has a significance of its own. The almond is a symbol of life and fertility; Aaron's rod in Numbers 17 produced almonds (the church fathers strongly link this rod with the Theotokos, who conceived supernaturally and inexplicably).

It represents more than what was seen but also what isn't seen, something beyond the physical. The "cloud" in the transfiguration account is represented by the mandorla. This is why the mandorla paradoxically gets darker as you move in - the greater the glory, and the greater the mystery.

Christ's hands in most icons are raised in blessing with His index and middle finger raised, showing His two natures; the thumb, ring, and pinky are joined together revealing the Trinity. In the traditional icon of the Transfiguration, instead Christ is offering a benediction with His thumb touching His ring finger, with the other three raised. This also represents His two natures, and the three persons of the Trinity, but His hands form the Greek monogram IC XC (first and last letters of Jesus Christ in Greek). This is another way to always know that the depiction is Christ.

His halo has the cross in it, showing the means of His redemption of man, as well as the Greek letters for He Who Is (traditionally -- in this case, instead there are three pips which denote the Trinity).

In this version, He carries a scroll, a likely reference to Psalm 40: "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me."

He is flanked on either side by Moses and Elijah - representing the Law and the Prophets. They also were two who wished to see God. Moses only saw His back, hidden in the cleft of the rock. Elijah heard the still small voice. Yet in this icon we see Christ revealing Himself to Sts Peter, James, and John "as far as they could bear it". Moses and Elijah are looking at God, while the Apostles are fallen, terrified. Even though they were chosen to be "eyewitnesses of His majesty...on the holy mountain" (2 Pet 1:16-18) they are terrified. A strong contrast to the static and peaceful depiction of the three above. This shows the contrast between the motionlessness, the peace, of the supernatural life; and the imperfection of even the three sinful men selected for this great honor. The peace of heaven is juxtaposed to the chaos of earth.

The hymns for the feast talk about each apostle being granted the vision of God as far as they could bear it. So St James is thrown down, St John covers his eyes, while St Peter covers his face and tries to look up and reach. I imagine also that this shows that at the glory of His second coming, we each will respond differently to Him, while His light shines on us the same.

////

So, you're telling me this depiction is somehow blasphemous?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There's a really good article called "Within a Mandorla" that anyone interest should read.

https://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/within-a-mandorla/

An excerpt I find relevant:
Quote:

There is a form of Christian literalism which belongs to a secular culture. The world is rendered only in a secularized, objective manner. Nothing is ever set within a mandorla. There is no perception of the mystery which has come among us in our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. In such a form of Christianity, faith is simply a description of what someone accepts as a set of "facts" in the same manner that we accept or reject what we read in a newspaper, etc. The facts are as static and empty as our perception. No change need happen in the witness of such facts. Either it happened and you saw it, or it did not happen...

Instead, the witness of Christ points us towards the depth of the mystery that is the truth of our relationship with risen Christ. We know Him and perceive Him not simply through a set of intellectual arguments, or even simply through our trust in reliability of historical witness. A "faith" which is founded on argument, no matter how sound the argument, still fails to change the one who accepts it. The result of such "faith" is opinion, not true faith.

True faith ultimately requires a union, a participation, in the very life of the risen Christ. Thus, we are not Baptized into opinions, but into the very death and resurrection of Christ. To use the language of icons, our life is plunged into a mandorla which is nothing other than the Kingdom of God.
...
The Fathers taught us: "Icons do with color what Scripture does with words." The iconic grammar of the mandorla, points us to the great mysteries made known to us in Scripture and make it clear that such mysteries may be known and entered into. Glory to God!
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 posts
IDAGG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

A graven image is a physical representation of God, like what Roman Catholics draw and depict in their churches.
As a statue worshiping, mackerel snapping, child kidnapping and Baptizing, sinning like hell all week and confessing on Saturday, made up Bible, bingo playing, Catholic...whatever. You seemed to be wrapped around the axle.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
At the point people are kneeling in front of the statue and venerating it, or are assigning the statue or object any kind of power.

See Latin America for examples out the wazoo.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can find examples "out the wazoo" in Protestant hymns and praise and worship songs about kneeling before the cross. Is that idolatry?

And this was already answered. From the decree of the Seventh Ecumenical council:
Quote:

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 (proskynesin) not indeed that true worship of faith (latreia) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. 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.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

I can find examples "out the wazoo" in Protestant hymns

Looking at you Make America Great Again.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

I can find examples "out the wazoo" in Protestant hymns and praise and worship songs about kneeling before the cross. Is that idolatry?

And this was already answered. From the decree of the Seventh Ecumenical council:
Quote:

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 (proskynesin) not indeed that true worship of faith (latreia) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. 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.



Kneeling in front of any earthly thing isn't exactly my cup of tea, including crosses.

And as for your quote about the Ecumenical Council, just because that's what the rule says doesn't mean that the adherent isn't assigning the importance to the statute or icon itself. Again common in Latin America.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you're basically saying if the practice can be corrupted it should be avoided altogether?

Not going to be a whole lot left to do in church.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This has often been the gist to many of the the objections to Catholic/Orthodox practices and beliefs on this board over the years.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.