k2aggie07 said:

---

What's your objection to that? He had a cheekbone, and an eye, and hair. Should we imagine that He was a ghost?

Lurking under iconoclastic thought is always the specter of a heresy against proper christology.

---

He had a cheekbone, and an eye, and hair. What did it look like? Any depiction would be from pure imagination.

RetiredAg,

I agree with every single word of your OP. It must be the first time ever. Congrats.

I don't think you're capturing the point of icons. They're not intended to be photorealistic. In fact, they're intended to NOT be photorealistic. Frequently in depictions of Christ,for example, He has sort of two faces - the famous Icon of Him at St Catherine's monastery is like this. The icon isn't supposed to share a image representation of history but a factual one.. which means physical and metaphysical representations.

I also want to point out that as long as icons have been made they have been stylized. People have claimed that this was because the artists lacked the ability or tools (such as perspective) to do anything else. But evidence of early burial shrouds and other similar depictions of human faces (like the Faiyum Portraits) show the opposite - where Christianity influenced artists, they became more stylized, not less. Of course this is logical when you see the problem an iconographer faces: how do you show something that doesn't exist in our reality? How do you depict someone who is dead but not dead?

How do you convey that Christ became Man, that He was Transfigured, that He was Baptized? Your answer seems to be you simply don't for fear of error or imagination. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Here's a mosaic of icons of Christ from around the world.



Are they all right? Wrong? Some of both?

k2aggie07 said:

---

How do you convey that Christ became Man, that He was Transfigured, that He was Baptized? Your answer seems to be you simply don't for fear of error or imagination. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

---

Agree to disagree. It's like reading a book and then watching the movie. Never has someone said that the screen writer, director, actors, etc. depicted the book exactly. It is always deficient. I'm ok with deficient representations of a book. I'm not ok with deficient representations of Christ's majesty, reverence, beauty, etc.

Do you think a written account is free from the accusation of being a deficient representation of Christ's majesty, reverence, beauty? Do you think your mortal intellect or reason can penetrate the Divine Mystery, that any representation you can conjure up is free from defect and a true likeness? Should we be silent, empty, contemplate nothing??

St John will say it far better than I could.

Quote:

---

There is a time for everything. [Eccl. 3.1] In the old days, the incorporeal and infinite God was never depicted. Now, however, when God has been seen clothed in flesh, and talking with mortals, [Baruch 3.37] I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honoring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God's body is God by its union with him, it is changeless. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is brought to life by a logical and reasoning soul.

I honor all matter, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to me. Was the three-times happy and blessed wood of the Cross not matter? Was the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary not matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Tomb, the source of our resurrection was it not matter? Is the holy book of the Gospels not matter? Is the blessed table which gives us the Bread of Life not matter? Are the gold and silver, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made not matter? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either stop venerating all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the venerating of images, honoring God and his friends, and following in this the grace of the Holy Spirit. Do not despise matter, for it is not despicable. Nothing that God has made is. Only that which does not come from God is despicable our own invention, the spontaneous decision to disregard the law of human nature, i.e., sin.

If you dishonor and reject images because they are produced by matter, consider what the Scripture says: "The Lord said to Moses, 'I have called Bezelel of Judah, and filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, understanding and knowledge of many crafts, to make artifacts from gold, silver, brass, marble, precious stones, and various kinds wood.'" [Ex. 31.1-5] This is the glorification of matter, which you call inglorious. How then, can you make the law a pretense for giving up what it orders? If you invoke the law it against images, you should keep the Sabbath, and practice circumcision. "If you observe the law, Christ will not profit you. You who are justified in the law are fallen from grace." [Gal. 5.2-4] Israel of old did not see God, but we see the Lord's glory face to face. [2 Cor. 3.18] God ordered twelve stones to be taken out of the River Jordan, and explained why. "When your son asks you the meaning of these stones, tell him how the water left the Jordan by God's command, and how the ark of the covenant was saved along with all the people." [Jos. 4.21-22] So how can we not record in images the saving pains and miracles of Christ our Lord, so that when my child asks me, "What is this?" I may say, "That God the Word became man, and that for His sake not Israel alone passed through the Jordan, but the whole human race regained their original happiness. Through him human nature rose from the lowest depths of the earth higher than the skies, and in his Person sat down on the throne his Father had prepared for him."

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Do you think a written account is free from the accusation of being a deficient representation of Christ's majesty, reverence, beauty? Do you think your mortal intellect or reason can penetrate the Divine Mystery, that any representation you can conjure up is free from defect and a true likeness? Should we be silent, empty, contemplate nothing??

---

I see no commandment against written and oral communication. That is the method given to us from God for his worship - namely preaching. However, images are expressly prohibited.

St John:

Quote:

---

Answer me this question: "Is there only one God?"

"Yes," you answer, "there is only one Law-giver."

So why would his commands contradict each other? The cherubim, for example, are mere creatures. Why, then, does he allow cherubim, carved by human hand, to overshadow the mercyseat in the temple? Obviously it is impossible to make an image of God because is infinite and changeless, or of someone like God because creation should not be worshipped as God. But he allowed the people to make an image of the cherubim who are finite and who lie in adoration before his throne, overshadowing the mercy-seat. It was fitting that the image of the heavenly choirs should overshadow the divine mysteries. Would you say that the ark of the covenant and staff and mercy-seat were not made by human hands? Do they not consist of what you call contemptible matter? What was the tabernacle itself? Was it not an image? Did it not depict a reality beyond itself? This is why the holy Apostle says that the rituals of the law, "serve as an example and shadow of heavenly things." [Heb. 8.5] Moses, when he came to finish the tabernacle, was told "make sure that you make everything according to the pattern that you were shown on the Mountain." [Ex. 25.40] The law was not an image itself, but it shrouded the image. In the words of the same Apostle, "the law contains the shadow of the goods to come, not the image of those things." [Heb. 10.1]

So, since the law is a forerunner of images, how can we say that it forbids images? Should the law ban us from making images, when the tabernacle itself was a depiction, a foreshadowing? No.

---

Quote:

---

So, since the law is a forerunner of images, how can we say that it forbids images?

---

Well, St. John, since I'm now discussing this matter with a dead man, I'm not against all images, just those of God. As the same Apostle says "Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." [Acts 17:29]

Different St John. This is St John of Damascus, not St John the Divine (Apostle).

Don't cherry pick. Read / post the full quote.

Quote:

---

Now, our opponents say, "God commanded Moses the law-giver, 'You will worship the Lord your God, and only him, and not make an image for yourself of anything in heaven above, or on the earth below.' " [Ex. 20:3-4] But they are wrong, and do not know the Scriptures. The letter kills while the spirit gives life, [2 Cor. 3:6] and they fail to find the spiritual meaning hidden in the letter. I say to these people, the Lord who taught you this would teach you more. Listen to the law-giver's interpretation of this law in Deuteronomy: "This is to stop you looking up to the heavens and, seeing the sun, moon and stars, being deceived by error and worshipping and serving them." [Deut. 4.19] The whole point of this is that we should not adore a created thing more than the Creator, nor give true worship to anything but him. But worship of false gods is not the same as venerating holy images.

Again, God says, "You shall not have any gods other than me. You shall not make yourself a graven image, or any likeness. You shall not adore them or serve them, for I am the Lord thy God." [Deut. 5.7-9] You see that he forbids image making to avoid idolatry, and because it is impossible to make an image of the immeasurable, invisible God. As St Paul said at the Areopagus, "As we are the offspring of God, we must not imagine God to be like gold, silver, stone, or anything created by humans." [Acts 17.29] But these instructions were given to the Jews because they were prone to idolatry. We, on the other hand, are no longer tied to apron strings. We have outgrown superstitious error, and know God in truth, worshiping him alone, enjoying the fullness of his knowledge. We are no longer children but adults. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be depicted and what may not. The Scripture says, "You have not seen his face." [Ex. 33.20] How wise the Law is! How could one depict the invisible? How picture the inconceivable? How could one express to the limitless, the immeasurable, the invisible? How give infinity a shape? How paint immortality? How put mystery in one place?

But when you think of God, who is a pure spirit, becoming man for your sake, then you can clothe him in a human form. When the invisible becomes visible to the eye, you may then draw his form. When he who is a pure spirit, immeasurable in the boundlessness of his own nature, existing as God, takes on the form of a servant and a body of flesh, then you may draw his likeness, and show it to anyone who is willing to contemplate it. Depict his coming down, his virgin birth, his baptism in the Jordan, his transfiguration on Mt Tabor, his all-powerful sufferings, his death and miracles, the proofs of his deity, the deeds he performed in the flesh through divine power, his saving Cross, his grave, his resurrection and his ascent into heaven. Give to it all the endurance of engraving and color.

---

Quote:

---

But these instructions were given to the Jews because they were prone to idolatry. We, on the other hand, are no longer tied to apron strings. We have outgrown superstitious error, and know God in truth, worshiping him alone, enjoying the fullness of his knowledge. We are no longer children but adults. We receive our habit of mind from God, and know what may be depicted and what may not.

---

Get over yourself.

You don't believe St Paul's words in 1 Cor? "for, "Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ".

PS I kiss and venerate the icon of Christ and that of the Theotokos every time I enter my Church, as do all Orthodox Christians.

Or perhaps you dont accept Christ's words, as paraphrased by St John of Damascus above, from the Gospel of St John the Divine.

"Believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

k2aggie07 said:

---

You don't believe St Paul's words in 1 Cor? "for, "Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ".

PS I kiss and venerate the icon of Christ and that of the Theotokos every time I enter my Church, as do all Orthodox Christians.

---

I'm sure St. John would be proud. As he says, you're not prone to idolatry, only Jews.

Anyway, your arguments are obviously identical to those of St John's detractors in the 7th century. He answered your charge of idolatry as:

Quote:

---

Have no fear or anxiety; not all veneration is the same. Abraham venerated the sons of Emmor, impious men who were ignorant of God, when he bought the double cave for a tomb. [Gen. 23.7] Jacob venerated his brother Esau and the Egyptian Pharaoh. [Gen 33.3] He venerated, but he did not worship in the full sense. Joshua and Daniel venerated an angel of God [Jos. 5.14, Dan. 8:16-17] they did not worship in the full sense.

Worship is one thing, veneration another. The invisible things of God have been made visible through images since the creation of the world. We see images in creation which remind us faintly of God, e.g. in order to talk about the holy and worshipful Trinity, we use the images of the sun and rays of light, a spring and a full river, the mind and speech and the spirit within us, or a rose tree, a sprouting flower, and a sweet fragrance. Also events in the future can be foreshadowed mystically by images. For instance, the ark represents the image of Our Lady, the Mother of God. So does the staff and the earthen jar. The bronze serpent shows us the one who defeated the bite of the original serpent on the Cross; [Jn 3:14-15] the sea, water and the cloud depict the grace of baptism. [I Cor. 10.1] ...

You must understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all the full worship which we show to God, who alone is by nature worthy of worship. But, for the sake of God who is worshipful by nature, we honor and venerate his saints and servants. It is in this sense that Joshua and Daniel worshipped an angel, [Jos. 5.14, Dan. 8:16-17] and David worshipped the Lord's holy places, when be said, "Let us go to the place where his feet have stood." [Ps. 132.7] Similarly, his dwelling place is worshipped, as when all the people of Israel adored in the tabernacle, and they stood round the temple in Jerusalem gazing at it from all sides worshipping, as they still do. Similarly, we honor the rulers established by God, as when Jacob gave homage to Esau, his elder brother, [Gen. 33.3] and to Pharaoh, the divinely established ruler. [Gen. 47.7] And Joseph was worshipped by his brothers. [Gen. 50.18] That kind of veneration is based on honour, as in the case of Abraham and the sons of Emmor. [Gen. 23.7] So then, either do away with all worship, or accept it in all its different kinds.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

I see we've exhausted your ability to have a discussion. Thanks for as far as we got.

---

Point still stands. All humans are prone to idol worship, not just Jews. Nothing has changed in that regard between the two testaments.

Quote:

---

Anyway, your arguments are obviously identical to those of St John's detractors in the 7th century. He answered your charge of idolatry as

---

How are we to venerate / worship God? Prayer, preaching, reading, singing, baptism, Lord's supper, probably a few more that I'm missing. Is carving an icon in there? When Moses was told Israel was making an idol when he was on the mountain, what was so bad about that? They were trying to worship God the best they knew how. It was the God "who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" after all.

If what happens today with these icons/idols is not prohibited, then what is?

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.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, your arguments are obviously identical to those of St John's detractors in the 7th century. He answered your charge of idolatry as

---

How are we to venerate / worship God? Prayer, preaching, reading, singing, baptism, Lord's supper, probably a few more that I'm missing. Is carving an icon in there? When Moses was told Israel was making an idol when he was on the mountain, what was so bad about that? They were trying to worship God the best they knew how.

---

What was so bad about it? They weren't creating a statue of Yahweh. The text is referring to "god or gods" (verse 1). They were worshiping an entirely different god.

Quote:

---

It was the God "who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" after all.

---

No, they were giving credit to a false god for bringing them out of Egypt. (verse 4)

Quote:

---

They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, '[d]This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!'"

---

This is God telling Moses about the false god(s) the people were worshiping. (verse 8) Some versions use the plural form of 'god' in verses 1, 4 and 8.

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.

Quote:

---

What was so bad about it? They weren't creating a statue of Yahweh. The text is referring to "god or gods" (verse 1). They were worshiping an entirely different god.

---

Without God telling Moses this, you wouldn't know that - other than the fact that God cannot be represented by human hands, which is my argument. In their eyes, they were creating a statue of Yahweh, or whatever God brought them out of Egypt.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

That he refuses to see a difference between a picture of Christ in a children's bible or a crucifix vs a golden calf being used to worship other gods tells me this is a standard MQB "discussion".

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.

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. Jesus is God. He took on flesh and bone. We know what men look like. Depicting Christ as a man is to depict the incarnate God. God is still 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. And the Israelites weren't even trying to create a depiction of God. They created a depiction of a god.