 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29th, 2007 02:24 pm |
|
Also, in the East it is seen as wrong to depict the image of God or the trinity. Yet I see it done at times. When is it ok or not. When can someone paint like a finger or a symbol to represent Him, and when is it going too far. In the Byzantine church I go to we have a picture of the hospitality of Abraham to the three angels taken to be a representation of the Trinity, but painted as angels.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29th, 2007 05:17 pm |
|
brian wrote:
In the East it is seen as wrong to depict the image of God or the trinity. Yet I see it done at times. When is it ok or not?
I have that icon of Abraham entertaining the angelic guests just to the right of me as I sit at the computer. Just below it, however, is an entirely different image of the Trinity, where the Father and the Son are depicted as identical twins robed in red. The only difference is the wounds in the Son’s hands, feet and side. The Holy Spirit, meanwhile, hovers as a dove between them.
The eastern tradition of icons is fascinating, but I don’t know much about it, simply because I’m Latin Rite. In the west, I have not seen the iconic restrictions that are so formal and de rigeur in the east. Still, the usual signature of the Trinity in the west is a triangle or cloverleaf, not faces. So each has its own approach and its own limits on how God is to be depicted.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 01:35 pm |
|
But if the church was one when these rules were hashed ou, why is the West not also bound by them. What I have read is that it was in the seventh ecumenical council (i thought all these were binding) that it was determined in the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
"In the Seventh Ecumenical Council we learn that God the Father is invisible and not able to be depicted. Such icons do not conform to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. There are many places within Sacred Scripture which tells us so as well. In the Holy Gospel of John at 5:37 the Lord says that people have not seen the shape or form of the Father, we are not to invent such an idea on our own. Speaking further on this topic St. Theodore the Studite explains, “Since Christ was born of the indescribable Father, He (the Father) cannot have an image.”
Brian
Edited to fix formatting
Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 03:44 pm by
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| First Name: | Jeff / japhy | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | (Roman) Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 03:42 pm |
|
This essay by Vladimir Moss refutes the claim that the depiction of God the Father in icons is heterodox. A particular icon is mentioned; I do not know which of these it is (or if it is another altogether):
Anyway, the essay is worth a read.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 07:28 pm |
|
| I have a print of an icon from the Church of the Resurrection at Kolomna. It says the subject of the icon is based on the Old Testament account of the Hospitality of Abraham (Gen 18), which tells of the meeting which took place under the oak of Mamre. The figures are three angels seated at a table, and represent the Holy Trinity. It goes on to say the three foretold the future miraculous birth of Isaac. Then two of the angels went to destroy Sodom, the town which had angered God, while one angel stayed to talk with Abraham. It is a re-presentation of an icon by Andrei Rublev. All this said, I don't think it was ever intended to be a likeness of God, just an allegorical scene.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 04:18 am |
|
Upon firther reflection I am still wondering why an ecumenical council could proclaim something to be forbidden and then for it to develop anyway. Though I am coming more from an Eastern mindset, I think it makes sense to take the Eastern view that it is best not to depict God the Father in a human way, accept perhaps in private work, but not liturgical artwork, as this is supposed to be theology. The Holy Spirit as a dove I think is best limited to icons of the baptism of Jesus as well from an Eastern point of view. Anyway, I'm not trying to make the definitive judgment, and I am sure many people haev been blessed by different artwork and some of it perhaps miraculously, but I am simply stating what seems to make sense to me from my background. I personally do not like seeing artwork where God the Father is depicted in any human way, and I think that the seventh ecumenical Council intended to deal with this. Though I do sense that some depictions of the hospitality of Abraham are argued for as a representation of the Trinity.
Brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 04:01 pm |
|
brian wrote: Upon firther reflection I am still wondering why an ecumenical council could proclaim something to be forbidden and then for it to develop anyway.
In essence, ecumenical councils make policy, not law. They present the truths that must then be interpreted and implemented by the Church. When Pope Benedict issued his moto proprio on the Latin mass, he was acting within the spirit of Vatican II by changing the law to fit more closely to the policies set by the Council Fathers.
We live in a different world than existed at the time of the council you mention. In pagan times, images of gods were believed to actually be the god, or at the very least an accurate representation. No one believes today that God as depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is an accurate portrayal. There is a difference between making a statue, icon, or painting and having it become the object of worship, and making a representation that expresses a truth about God in a manner that is understandable to the human mind. For example, the depiction of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel shows God the Father giving the spark of life to Adam. It is one image of one aspect of God's creative power, not truly a representation of God as a being. In my opinion, the difference is significant. We can depict Jesus as human, but we cannot depict the Father or Spirit, or the Trinity, in any manner even approaching accuracy. We can, however, depict aspects of their being, as we see in the depictions above of the Most High God upon God's Mighty Throne, or when we see images of the apostles at Pentecost with the Spirit rising above them as tongues of fire.
God gave us some of these images through scripture. We have God our Father depicted as a burning bush, a pillar of fire and cloud, a voice from heaven, and mounting his Throne amid shouts of joy surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. We have the Holy Spirit descending as wind, doves, and tongues of fire. And we have images of Jesus not only as human but as the bridegroom at the heavenly Wedding Feast of the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
But we know that none of these are God. And I believe that's the difference. We can't take a fourth century prohibition against idolatry to forbid non-idolatrous images for all time.
I am simply stating what seems to make sense to me from my background.
And you are perfectly free to hold that belief.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 07:21 pm |
|
Painting by Ariel Agemian, combined with the image on the Holy Shroud of Turin, believed to be that of Jesus Christ. This may be the closest thing to a "photograph" of Jesus that we have. I scanned it from a three-dimensional card which had both images on it.
Iconoclasm (forbidding of images) was condemned in 787, at the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. The Orthodox accept that. So they depict Jesus. God the Father is a little different, because He is indeed invisible, as Scripture teaches us. So any depiction of Him, has to be thought of as "artistic license," as, e.g., in Michelangelo. It is depicting an idea, with (hopefully) the understanding that it is not to be taken literally. But we can understand someone who thinks depiction of God the Father shouldn't be done.
Actually, the Bible does the same thing that Michelangelo does, in depicting the Father metaphorically, in many ways, such as saying that He has "wings" and referring to His "arm" or "hand" etc. I would contend that since literary metaphor is in the Bible itself, why not visual, artistic metaphor about God the Father as well? One thing is no worse than the other.
That said, Jesus is the one Who "revealed" God; He is the "God-icon". Here are some related Scripture passages:
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is described four times in the Bible, by the Apostle Paul, as the image (Greek: eikon) of God. Twice, he uses the word directly of Jesus (2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15), and twice in the sense of Christians being transformed into or conformed to the image of Jesus/God (Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 4:4). This changes everything. The incarnation made images permissible, as long as they were representing Jesus, the "image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15; KJV, RSV).
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of (his) glory, and the express image of his person, . . . (KJV)
Here the word is charakter in Greek (Strong's word #5481). Strong's defines it as: "a 'graver' (the tool or the person), i.e. (by impl.) 'engraving' ('character'), the 'figure' stamped, i.e., an exact 'copy' or (fig.) 'representation'): - express image."
JESUS IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE FATHER [all verses: KJV]
God the Father is Invisible, and Can't be Seen
1) EXODUS 33:20,23 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live . . . (23) And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. {cf. Jud 13:22}
2) JOHN 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time . . .
3) JOHN 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
4) JOHN 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
5) COLOSSIANS 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
6) 1 TIMOTHY 1:17 . . . the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, . . .
7) 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: . . .
8) 1 JOHN 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time . . .
Jesus Reveals, and is the Image of, the Father
1) JOHN 1:18 . . . the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared {him}. {RSV,NIV: "made him known"}
2) JOHN 12:45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
3) JOHN 14:7-9 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. (8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. (9) Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou {then}, Shew us the Father?
4) 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4 . . . Christ, who is the image of God, . . .
5) COLOSSIANS 1:15 . . . the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
6) HEBREWS 1:3 Who being the brightness of {his} glory, and the express image of his person, . . .
7) REVELATION 22:1,3-4 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb . . . (3) And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: (4) And they shall see his face; . . .
Last edited on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 07:27 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 453 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, CC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 12:40 pm |
|
| I know of a band who had in their sleve a picture of three men as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, totally erronious since that depicts three Gods, yet I do not believe that was his intention. Like a vid I once saw where a man was having a conversation w/God and God said he was surprised at a lot of what we humans do. A bunch of folk got all uptight by the vid's suggestion that God is not omnicient, again, that was not the point of the vid, nor was he teaching doctrine! Most people I've met in the pews, either Protestant or Catholic, know little about these things, yet their lives display the love of God in them. At times I wish I didn't "know" so much, I long at times for the simplicity of my youth, or as Jim Morrison put it; "back then everything was simplar and more confused!" Steve Brown once said; "the answers to our questions have only served to confuse us further, at least we are confused on a higher level and more profoundly!"
____________________
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries."--1st Peter 4:3 NKJV
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 327 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 02:46 am |
|
In Romania they painted icons on glass simply because that is what they had. I have always found this to be a very interesting icon of the Holy Trinity. It is an example of folk art in a sence more than following the technical rules of iconography. But, even at that, it is unusual.
Click here
Edited to shorten link.Last edited on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 02:54 am by
|
|
|
Current time is 09:15 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
